Get your daily dose of health and medicine every weekday with STAT’s free newsletter Morning Rounds. Sign up here.
The winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine was announced early this morning. Did you win your office pool? Do you think another research team was robbed? Send me all your hot takes at [email protected].
Now without further ado:
2026 prize awarded to U.S. and German scientists for optogenetics research
Karl Deisseroth, Peter Hegemann, and Georg Nagel are the joint recipients of the 2026 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discoveries concerning light-gated ion channels and optogenetics,” the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden announced on Monday.
Deisseroth, a professor at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Stanford University, Hegemann, a professor at Humboldt University in Berlin and Nagel, a professor at the University of Würzburg, Germany, developed a method that uses light, combined with genetic modifications of neurons, to switch on or off individual cells in a living brain. This makes it possible to show how nerve cells shape memories, feelings and behavior in the brain, and is being studied as a treatment for disease. Read more here.
(Oh and are you wondering whether human Nobel prize winners are about to become an endangered species, now that AI is around? This former medical school dean is asking the same question in a new First Opinion.)
The advocates trying to make stem cells happen
As STAT’s Margaret Manto was tooling around a peptide conference last month, she heard a lot about another regenerative medicine: stem cells. Proponents for peptides argue that stem cells are also a revolutionary treatment, though the data doesn’t bear that out.
Normally, that would be a problem for winning FDA approval. But Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s health department seems much more open to these kinds of treatments. As Margaret writes: “The stem cell industry sees the FDA’s tentative embrace of peptides as its chance to get a foot in the door — and bring stem cells from the grey market to millions of Americans.” What could that mean for eager patients? Read more here.
Could we one day vaccinate against every cancer?
In August, two drug companies announced that their mRNA vaccine, combined with an immunotherapy drug, had substantially cut the risk of the return of melanoma. That news raised an exciting possibility — that personalized vaccines could one day protect us from many types of cancer. But days later, a German drugmaker said it was ending its trial of a colorectal vaccine after early data showed the treatment wasn’t working.
That tale of two vaccines has experts scratching their heads. Read about how they’re making sense of the results, and what that might teach us about which cancers can be beaten by vaccines — and which will require more creative approaches. (And if that’s not enough incentive, there’s also a really helpful explanation of how cancer vaccines rally the body’s immune system.)
‘It’s been a little shocking to hear the level of despair’
Faithful readers know that STAT’s Bob Herman has been turning out hit after hit on the crisis in employer-based health insurance, chronicling the extreme financial pressure facing many American business owners. In honor of today’s new installment, I asked what’s surprised him most over the course of his reporting. Here’s what he told me:
“I have covered health insurance for well over a decade, and there’s never been a time when employers and workers have been happy or excited about their options. It’s always been ‘expensive.’ But it’s been a little shocking to hear the level of despair and concern among businesses and policy experts. GLP-1s, in particular, are pushing so many employers to the brink.
I’ve also been surprised to learn about some behind-the-scenes behaviors of the health care industry toward employers, most of which don’t look great! One is in my new story today — how a hospital tried to strong-arm an employer to pay more than $230,000 for an outpatient procedure, then backed off after realizing it made a billing mistake (but still got a hefty price). Health insurers embed some wild terms in contracts with employers, and “savings” sometimes don’t mean savings at all for businesses. It’s very easy to get taken advantage of, even for vigilant employers.”
Energy drinks are dangerous for teens. Why don’t we do more to protect them?
I can’t lie — I definitely drank a Red Bull or two to fuel my college all-nighters. But those drinks never left me feeling especially great. Which makes sense: Research shows that energy drinks aren’t safe for teenagers. At high levels, too much caffeine pushes the teen heart and brain into overdrive and can cause acute illness.
Colleges should help their students avoid these dangerous consequences. But things are moving in the opposite direction, writes Kent Sepkowitz in a new First Opinion. Schools are teaming up with brands like Celsius and Monster Energy for sports sponsorships. What will it take to stop the “energy drink cabal?” Read Sepkowitz’s diagnosis.
Good news, bad news on opioids
More young people are being treated for opioid use disorder with medications. But fewer are staying on that treatment for at least six months. That’s according to a new paper in JAMA. Experts aren’t quite sure why, but some point to the challenge of accessing drugs like buprenorphine and methadone when you’re under 18.
As Theresa Gaffney explains, “federal law requires minors to have two documented ‘failed’ attempts at recovery without medication before they can start methadone, and even then, many of the specialized clinics that provide it won’t accept minors.”
What we’re reading
- A.I. anxiety is spilling into the therapist’s office, The New York Times
- Midterms have revived universal health care debate. These states are ahead of everyone, KFF News
- What it’s like to wait for the call from the Nobel Prize committee, STAT
- Stunning fossil shows dinosaurs’ distinctive path to flight, Nature