Early in Vas Narasimhan’s career as a physician scientist, he worked on programs for treating HIV/AIDS in Africa and saw the impact of medicine in places that need it most. The experience inspired Narasimhan to lead development of drugs and vaccines for more than two decades. But treatments didn’t always reach the neediest, and he “dreamed of having a much bigger impact on the world,” he says. In 2018, he became CEO of Novartis and seized the opportunity to direct the company’s vast resources for transformative change. In the past year alone, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved new uses of Novartis’ drugs for three devastating diseases: breast cancer, chronic myeloid leukemia, and prostate cancer. “These approvals will change the paradigm for treating cancer patients,” Narasimhan says. The medicine now approved for use against prostate cancer, called Pluvicto, is an example of Novartis’ investment in radioligand therapy—where a small radioactive molecule, delivered intravenously, destroys cancer cells while sparing healthy tissue. Narasimhan thinks it could revolutionize medicine. He is similarly excited about AI, which is accelerating Novartis’ clinical trials, and the company’s cell and gene therapies, including a new form of its treatment for spinal muscular atrophy designed to help a broader range of children. The CEO hasn’t forgotten his scientist roots, still scrutinizing the data from clinical trials. He’s also staying true to his ultimate goal: “advancing these novel technologies at scale.” With his leadership, Novartis last year became the No. 1 pharmaceutical company for improving access to medicine in low-to-middle-income countries, according to the Access to Medicine Foundation. More than 1 billion people in over 70 countries have received Novartis’ treatments for malaria largely at no profit to the company, Narasimhan says. Bringing his early-career visions of changemaking to fruition, he says, is “incredibly rewarding.”

Akeso Biopharma, based in Zhongshan, China, has become one of the country’s biggest breakout innovators this year. Led by co-founder and CEO Michelle Xia, the company has surged onto the international scene with drugs focused on cancer and immunology. In March, a phase 3 study published in The Lancet showed Akeso’s ivonescimab outperformed Merck’s blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) pushing the FDA to fast-track its approval review of ivonescimab. And in April, the FDA approved Akeso’s drug candidate penpulimab-kcqx—its first approval in the U.S.—for some types of head and neck cancer, four years after it was approved in China. Just a decade ago, this kind of success was unimaginable to Xia. When she started the company with her cofounders in March 2012, there was little drug innovation in China. “We started from nothing,” she says. They built a lab, started drug discovery programs, moved products into development, manufacturing, clinical trials, and commercialization. In the past 10 years, they’ve tested dozens of candidates and brought seven drugs to market. They’re currently eyeing cancer treatment cadonilimab, first approved in China in 2022, as their next drug to expand globally. The drug significantly improved survival rates for patients with cervical cancer compared to chemotherapy alone, according to results presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology meeting in November. The company’s sudden global influence is indicative of China’s spreading power in medicine. Akeso is running several phase 3 studies to expand the approval of ivonescimab in China, but it’s also collaborating with Summit Therapeutics to bring ivonescimab to clinical trials in the U.S., Europe, and more. Despite the fraught geopolitical climate, Xia’s optimistic about a future where treatments can be exchanged between countries. For example, drugs Akeso developed in China have already accrued lots of patient data, which can shorten the development and approval timeline in the U.S.. “We can contribute innovation globally,” Xia says. “I think that's very satisfying.”

Nancy Brown has been CEO of the American Heart Association since 2008. She was instrumental in starting the group’s Go Red for Women Venture Fund in 2024, which aims to invest $75 million in companies focused on health solutions specifically for women—since they often have different heart-disease symptoms than men. Only 2% of health care venture funding in 2023 went to women’s health, Brown says. Now, the American Heart Association is funding researchers who are studying ways to better spot high-risk women. Under Brown’s leadership, the fund will make its first investments in two start-up companies that help diagnose and treat neurological conditions and high blood pressure in women. “I predict that care will change in the not distant future because of the funding that we've been able to provide and the real dedication of these scientists.”

Coventry University introduces innovative six-week teaching blocks, offering unprecedented flexibility for international students seeking quality UK education. Coventry University is transforming the traditional academic calendar with a groundbreaking approach to higher education that allows students to begin their studies at six different times throughout the year. This revolutionary model breaks from the conventional term and semester system, putting students' needs at the center of the university experience. A new era of flexible learning Coventry University Group covers all its entities and campuses and from September 2025, postgraduate courses taught will transition to six start dates per year, with undergraduate courses following in September 2026. This innovative approach means students no longer need to wait for the traditional September or January start dates but can begin their academic journey at a time that best suits their personal circumstances. The six-week teaching block method has already proven successful at CU Coventry, CU Scarborough and CU London campuses, which offer more vocationally focused courses, with flexible learning options and no end-of-year exams. They aim to provide a high-quality learning experience while allowing students to better balance their life and their studies. They also aim to offer lower tuition fees than other comparable institutions, helping to make higher education more affordable. "Our key focus is preparing our students for fulfilling and productive careers in their chosen fields." explains Professor John Latham CBE, Vice-Chancellor of Coventry University and Group CEO. "These changes help us achieve that while offering tremendous flexibility for those exploring the incredible life-transforming opportunities higher education can offer." How the six-week block system works Under this innovative model, each academic subject is taught in focused six-week blocks, allowing students to immerse themselves in one module at a time. Assessment takes place in the seventh week, creating a clear structure that helps students manage their workload effectively. The modules operate on a carousel model, enabling learners to begin their studies at any of the six annual start points. This approach particularly benefits international students who may face visa timing challenges or have different academic calendars in their home countries. Gold-standard education with global recognition Coventry University's commitment to innovation extends beyond its teaching structure. The university has earned a Gold rating for Student Experience in the 2023 Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and boasts 5 QS Stars for Inclusiveness in the prestigious QS Stars University Ratings. International students will find Coventry particularly welcoming as it ranks No. 1 in the UK for International Student Diversity according to QS Europe University Rankings 2024. The city itself is among the top 10 student cities in England for affordability (QS Best Student Cities Index Ranking Indicators 2025), making it an ideal destination for students seeking quality education without breaking the bank. Preserving course diversity While some universities are cutting specialised courses due to economic pressures, Coventry's innovative approach ensures students can pursue their specific academic interests rather than being forced into broader, less specialised degrees. The flexibility extends to degree pacing as well, with opportunities for accelerated degrees that allow motivated students to complete their qualifications in less time than traditional courses require. A proven approach to student success This teaching model isn't experimental – it's a proven approach already delivering results across the CU campuses. The university has observed higher progression rates and increased student satisfaction among those studying in this format. "While our CU locations have long offered six-week teaching blocks, we are now rolling out this model across all of our campuses, having seen how popular and effective this approach has proved," notes Professor Latham. The carousel structure also means that if a student needs to take a break from studies due to personal circumstances, they can rejoin at the next available point without losing an entire academic year – a feature particularly valuable for international students who may need to return home temporarily. The future of higher education Coventry University's bold approach reflects its commitment to innovation and student-centred learning. By breaking with tradition, the university is creating a more accessible, flexible and responsive education system that better serves the needs of a diverse global student population. For international students considering UK education, Coventry's six start dates model offers unprecedented flexibility and opportunity. To explore how this innovative approach could support your educational journey, visit www.coventry.ac.uk/international.

Harvard University became the leader of academia’s resistance to the Trump administration — and soaked in acclaim from the White House’s critics — when it refused a roster of intrusive demands and took the government to court last month. Legal experts saw a strong case, built by a team of elite conservative lawyers, to win back billions of research dollars that the government had stripped away. Supporters cheered on Harvard’s unusually sharp public tone. “Congratulations to Harvard for refusing to relinquish its constitutional rights to Trump’s authoritarianism,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote on social media last month. But behind the scenes, several senior officials at Harvard and on its top governing board believe that the university is confronting a crisis that could last until President Trump is out of power, according to three people involved in the discussions. Even if Harvard’s legal case is successful, these officials say, the school will still face enormous troubles that may force the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university to rethink its identity and scale. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Any outcome seems likely to lead to significant cuts to Harvard’s research and work force and undermine its pre-eminence for years. Without its sprawling research apparatus, there is a fear that it could become more like a small, teaching-focused liberal arts college. University leaders believe the only clear options are either working with Mr. Trump or somehow securing huge sums of money quickly, perhaps from private donors, the three people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss school officials’ private deliberations. The crosscurrents are unlike any that the university has faced in its modern history. For centuries, Harvard has cherished its independence, its swaggering pride and its record of academic excellence. But Mr. Trump has reveled in unleashing chaos that many believe will be difficult to contain as long as he sees the university as a target. On Monday, the Trump administration intensified the clash and threatened to choke off grant money to Harvard indefinitely. “They can make your life unpleasant, even if they’re violating the law and a court ultimately determines they’re violating the law,” said Samuel R. Bagenstos, who was general counsel of the Health and Human Services Department during the Biden administration.Harvard declined to comment on Thursday. But the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard’s largest division, acknowledged the scale of the university’s problems during a faculty meeting this week. “These federal actions have set in motion changes that will not be undone, at least not in the foreseeable future,” said the dean, Hopi E. Hoekstra, according to the campus newspaper, The Harvard Crimson. “While Harvard is challenging the funding freeze in court, we can’t assume that resolution will be reached quickly, or, even if Harvard prevails, that the funds will be returned in full,” Dr. Hoekstra said. Mr. Trump and the executive branch have immense leverage over the school. The education secretary, Linda McMahon, said on Monday that the federal government would stop issuing grants and contracts to Harvard going forward, or at least try. Harvard received about $687 million in federal research money during its 2024 fiscal year, making the federal government its largest revenue source for a portfolio of projects that range from tuberculosis to space travel research. Harvard recently issued $750 million in bonds, and its endowment is valued at more than $53 billion. But most of the endowment money is restricted, meaning that it cannot be spent at will. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Harvard has already imposed a hiring freeze and started layoffs. Dean Hoekstra’s division has an internal group, now known as the Research Continuity Committee, studying how the university can use a far smaller pot of research money that does not come from the federal government. For now, the Harvard Corporation, the board that oversees the university, has decided to stay the course and keep fighting. Board members are acutely sensitive to the uproar that followed when Columbia University and major law firms like Paul, Weiss cut deals with Mr. Trump, according to two of the three people involved in the discussions. But some officials have wondered whether the school might face less blowback for a deal, since Harvard leaders could frame any agreement as a successful settlement to the muscular litigation they brought. That lawsuit was in response to a list of demands that the government sent in April, requiring the university to submit to new audits, alter its admissions and hiring practices, dilute faculty influence and establish “viewpoint diversity.” The corporation has told the school’s lawyers not to engage with the Trump administration, according to the two people involved in discussions. Complicating matters is whether the White House will honor a deal. Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president, said in an interview that it was difficult to judge any potential settlement before its terms became public. But, he said, “It would be a tragedy if Harvard resolved this in a way that gave support and encouragement to the idea of extralegal extortion.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “Harvard is almost uniquely well positioned — much better than any individual law firm or any individual company or almost any other institution — to resist unlawful extortion because of its resources, because of its prestige, because of the breadth of its network,” he said. The Trump administration has encouraged the university to negotiate. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said last month that Harvard’s aggressive response to the administration’s demands was “showboating.” He added: “They know more than anyone that not playing ball is going to hurt their team.” The Trump administration this week reiterated its aim to inflict as much damage as possible, when Ms. McMahon fired off a letter telling Harvard that it would not receive future federal grants. Although experts on government contracts and grants scoffed at the missive, the government can essentially blacklist contractors through a process called debarment. Debarment is not an overnight procedure, and it can be challenged. But a victory for Harvard could be a hollow one since the Trump administration could still try to manipulate the grant-making process away from the school, academics said in interviews this week. Dr. Daniel W. Jones, a former University of Mississippi chancellor who also led the medical school there, said federal agencies had substantial sway over funding decisions, even when peer review was involved. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “They could find a reason,” said Dr. Jones, a former president of the American Heart Association who often consults on grants. “So much has been turned upside down.” Litigation can last months or years. Harvard is seeking a speedy end to its pending case against the government, but the next hearing is not until July. Appeals could extend the battle, too, stripping Harvard of money and time. Dr. Jones has also noted that researchers “can’t just stop science and pick it back up.” Even if Harvard ultimately wins in court, funding disruptions could have already upended or compromised carefully structured projects. “Harvard is in a really bad spot,” Mr. Bagenstos, the Biden official, said. All of higher education, he added, “is in a really bad spot here.” Aside from the research funding, there will be nothing to stop the administration from saddling the school with more onerous and potentially costly investigations, like the ones currently being conducted by at least five different departments and agencies, including the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Some university officials fear those investigations, which so far appear to be only civil matters, could swell into full-blown criminal inquiries in the coming months.

As director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), navigating uncertainty is part of Tedros Ghebreyesus’ job. Health threats don’t give warnings, and the viruses and pathogens responsible for them aren’t always predictable. But even he was surprised by President Donald Trump’s executive order on Jan. 20, Trump’s first day in office, announcing the U.S. was immediately withdrawing from the WHO and would cease communication with the organization. Most importantly, it would send no further funds, including what it owed for the 2024-2025 period. Ghebreysus was in Tanzania at the time, helping officials there manage an outbreak of Marburg virus (kin to Ebola) that killed the handful who were infected. While Trump had also attempted to withdraw from the WHO during his first term, there was no indication that he would continue those efforts—especially so soon. “There was no heads up,” Ghebreyesus says of the decision. He learned about it while watching the evening news. The next day, at a planned meeting with international health agencies to discuss the Marburg situation, the U.S. ambassador was absent. “They started to enforce the order immediately,” Ghebreysus says. He still has not heard from Trump.

Already controversial because of his skepticism about vaccines, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has proven a lightning rod since he was sworn in as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Feb. 13. Pledging to “Make America Healthy Again,” he is overseeing a massive reorganization of HHS that includes downsizing its head count from 82,000 to 62,000 and slashing billions in grants that fund medical research. As the CDC worked to contain a measles outbreak which has infected more than 700 and killed two young children and one adult—the first such deaths from the disease in the U.S. in years—Kennedy has both endorsed the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and also claimed that it was “not safety tested,” despite decades of scientific consensus that the vaccine is safe and effective. Kennedy’s statements about vaccines while in office have alarmed many in public health. And after a new CDC study showed a rising incidence of autism among children, Kennedy called the increase an “epidemic,” infuriating many scientists who say that the rise is driven by increased awareness and screening; he vowed new studies on environmental toxins, which he says have sent autism rates soaring, dismissing scientific evidence on other factors that can contribute to the disorder, like genetics. Kennedy is also moving quickly on some of his other top causes, pushing food manufacturers to phase out petroleum-based food dyes and trying to close a loophole that has allowed new ingredients to get into food uninspected—winning new allies, and critics, along the way.

One of the particular characteristics of the Gates Foundation is its focus. It doesn’t try to solve all the world’s problems, but it attempts to be very comprehensive about the issues it addresses. After Melinda French Gates left the foundation she took that focus to her now 10-year old enterprise Pivotal Ventures, which looks for ways to improve women’s welfare. In October, she announced she would distribute $250 million to organizations that have innovative ideas about improving the mental and physical health of women and families, part of a bigger $1 billion thrust to advance women’s rights and wellbeing on several fronts. One of the biggest challenges in women’s health is a lack of data—not just about health issues that only strike women, like family planning, maternal mortality and menopause, but also about issues that show up differently in women than in men, such as auto-immune disease and digestive disorders. Gates wants to fund research and solutions to address these gaps, and hosted an open call for enterprises to pitch for some of that $250 million. But it’s not just about medicine. As caregivers, women sometimes have challenges getting access to the health services they need even if they’re readily available. Gates is also, for the first time, spending money on reproductive rights in the U.S., partly because she now has grandchildren. Recipients include the Guttmacher Institute and the Center for Reproductive Rights. “My granddaughter will have fewer rights than I do,” she told TIME in 2024. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

As Google’s first chief health officer, Dr. Karen DeSalvo says she invented the job as she went. There was a lot to create. Since arriving at Google in 2019, she has capitalized on health applications of technology like generative AI, and in 2024 Google Health launched the latest version of AlphaFold, an revolutionary modeling tool that helps biomedical researchers predict the shape of proteins as they develop new drugs and treatments for human diseases. Under DeSalvo’s leadership (she recently announced she will retire this summer), Google Health also modernized how doctors and scientists, as well as patients, understand health care data. In May 2024, the company released Med-Gemini, an AI-based tool to help doctors and researchers make sense of the increasing volumes of medical data, from health records and images to journal articles. And to help patients navigate the confusing U.S. health care system, Google is developing digital agents that can research symptoms, make appointments with health care providers, and evaluate which treatment options are right for them. DeSalvo’s team also oversaw the development of the 2024 Pixel watch, which has a new feature that detects when someone no longer has a pulse and immediately calls emergency services.

When David Ricks became CEO of Eli Lilly, he faced the usual pressures of making the right, albeit risky, bets on the next big pharmaceutical breakthrough. But he also faced a unique challenge—the Midwest-based company’s culture of “Lilly nice” that led to very little dissent and conflict among leadership. To Ricks, those habits inhibited productive discussion, and risked losing Lilly’s edge as an innovator known for developing new drug classes, as it had with human insulin and the antidepressant Prozac. So he’s pushed to increase not just speed but also communication with researchers and scientists outside of the company to ensure that Lilly stays on top of the next big thing. It’s paid off, both for the company’s stockholders and for patients—its market capitalization is valued close to $900 billion and its treatments outperform rivals. Lilly developed the most effective Alzheimer’s treatment yet, which studies show is more effective than its competitor in reducing the cognitive decline associated with the disease, and was approved by the FDA in July 2024. And its diabetes and obesity treatments (marketed as Mounjaro and Zepbound), which patients inject once a week, also reduce blood sugar and weight, respectively, more effectively than the competition. The company just announced encouraging data in April on its first oral version of these drugs, which so far appears to reduce blood sugar and weight by similar amounts as the injectable version. “If it’s going to be a great drug, let’s make sure it says Lilly on it,” Ricks says of his drug development philosophy. A pill would be cheaper to make and therefore less expensive for patients as well—another issue Ricks has confronted head on. He led the company into unprecedented territory when he slashed the price of insulin to $35 a month, which prompted others in the industry to do the same. He’s applied the same strategy to reduce costs to patients for its weight loss and diabetes drugs, turning the pharmaceutical giant into a pharmacy for the first time with Lilly Direct, which allows patients to order the drug directly from Lilly, and also access doctors who can prescribe the medication at a reduced cost for those paying out of pocket. “Why didn’t these things happen earlier?” he says. “I don’t know, but I think people feel constrained by norms, and we just pushed beyond them. Do what you do well, where you can, and push the boundary when that’s not enough.”