Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: The Supreme Judicial Court said MIT cannot be blamed for the death of 25-year-old Han Nguyen, who jumped from the top of a campus building minutes after a professor confronted him about an offensive email. But it found that schools can be liable if they fail to act after they become aware that a student has attempted suicide while enrolled, or shortly before entering, or learn that the student had threatened to commit suicide. Gary Pavela, a consultant on law and policy issues in higher education, said he’s unaware of another state appellate court that has explicitly found that universities have a duty to prevent suicide in limited cases and defines those circumstances. “This will be very newsworthy to colleges around the country,” said Pavela, who has written a book about the legal questions surrounding student suicides. Jeffrey Beeler, an attorney for Nguyen’s estate, said they were disappointed the court sided with MIT, but believe its ruling will nonetheless “save student lives going forward.” An MIT spokeswoman said in a statement that Nguyen’s death was a tragedy and students’ well-being is of “paramount importance to the school.” Spokeswoman Kimberly Allen said the school already offers a “robust network” of services for students and “continually considers ways to enhance those resources.” The court noted that Nguyen never told anyone at MIT that he planned to kill himself or tried to kill himself while enrolled at the school. Furthermore, he was living off campus instead of a dormitory under “daily observation,” the court said. But the judges said schools must take “reasonable measures” to help students they know have attempted suicide while at the school or have threatened to kill themselves. That would include initiating a suicide prevention protocol, getting the student in the care of a medical professional, or contacting police, fire or emergency medical personnel. “It requires the school to really have a lot of information that the suicide is likely and the reasonable measures that the school needs to take are not extremely onerous,” said Naomi Shatz, an attorney who’s not involved in the case. A group of 18 colleges and universities — including Harvard University and Boston College — told the court that holding MIT responsible for Nguyen’s death would have far-reaching consequences by causing officials with no medical expertise to overreact to concerns out of fear of liability. Nguyen’s professors shared concerns about his mental health in the months leading up to his death, and one encouraged his colleagues to pass him or they might have “blood on their hands.” In a telephone call 11 minutes before he killed himself, a professor “read him the riot act” over an email Nguyen sent to another MIT official that they believed was inappropriate, court records said. The family said that the school should have known that “mishandling this fragile student” would result in his suicide. But MIT said the school wasn’t aware of the severity of his condition, noting that he was treated by outside professionals and refused on-campus resources. None of the professionals who treated Nguyen while he was at MIT believed he was an imminent risk of killing himself, the school said. ___ Follow Alanna Durkin Richer at http://twitter.com/aedurkinricher . Read more of her work at http://bit.ly/2hIhzDb . Claim: Court says schools can be liable for suicides but clears MIT.

A: Schools can be held liable for student suicides in certain circumstances, Massachusetts’ highest court said Monday in a ruling that also cleared the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of responsibility for the death of a graduate student who killed himself on campus in 2009.
****
Q: Paragraph: Made by Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc, Nexavar is  approved in the United States for kidney and liver cancer. Eight out of the first nine patients who took the drug saw  improvements in their ability to exercise, and six out of nine  had significant improvement in their right ventricular ejection  fraction, which measures the heart’s ability to pump blood to  the lungs. Four patients had decreased pressure in their pulmonary  artery, which supplies blood to the lungs. “What patients are telling us is they are able to do more  in their daily lives,” said Dr. Mardi Gomberg-Maitland of the  University of Chicago, who presented her findings at a meeting  of the American Thoracic Society in Toronto. The original  research on the drug was done at the University. She said the surprising thing is that the drug worked so  quickly. Patients saw benefits in only four months. The study is the first human trial to examine the  sorafenib, or Nexavar, in pulmonary hypertension, a disease in  which blood vessels feeding the lungs narrow, forcing the heart  to work harder. Like cancer, pulmonary hypertension is a disease marked by  abnormal cell growth, which narrows the arteries feeding the  lungs, reducing blood flow and taxing the heart. Sorafenib  appears to interfere with this process. The trial enrolled patients with stable disease who  continued to take their primary medications, which included a  continuous infusion of a drug called prostacyclin and Pfizer  Inc’s Viagra or sildenafil. Both relax blood vessels that feed  the lungs. Gomberg-Maitland said this therapy typically slows  progression of the disease, but does not reverse it. They added sorafenib for 16 weeks, but at a lower dose than  cancer patients use. Most patients in the trial increased their exercise  capacity, as measured by time on a treadmill or a six-minute  walk test. They saw an average 8 percent improvement in their  right ventricular ejection fraction, a measure of the heart’s  pumping power. Side effects included mild hair loss and skin reactions. The study was designed to last only 16 weeks, but all of  the patients continue to take the drug, some now for more than  a year. “What is exciting about this is all of the patients feel  better and nobody wants to come off the medication,”  Gomberg-Maitland said in a telephone interview. The study was intended to test the safety and dosing of the  drug. It was funded by The Doris Duke Foundation and the  University of Chicago. The researchers now plan to study the drug in 40 to 60  patients at different research centers. Claim: Nexavar helped in pulmonary hypertension study.

A: The cancer drug Nexavar is showed  promise in a small study of people with pulmonary hypertension,  a debilitating condition marked by high blood pressure in the  arteries that supply the lungs, U.S. researchers said on  Monday.
****
Q: Paragraph: "Remember the classic U.S. Army slogan? ""We do more by 9 a.m. than most people do all day,"" a voice said in the famous commercial. What you may not know is that the military is doing some significant multitasking. In addition to chasing down terrorists and conducting humanitarian rescue missions in places such as the Philippines, the Defense Department is also working to prevent and cure some of the deadliest diseases known to mankind. U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., recently said the medical research may not be the best use of Defense Department resources. ""What I don’t understand is why the … military is spending $80 million a year on prostate cancer research, why we’re spending $25 million a year on ovarian cancer research and $150 million on breast cancer research. We’re also doing lung cancer research,"" Chambliss said during a Nov. 7 meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Chambliss wants additional money for the Defense Department, but he says it should be spent wisely. ""Now if there are particular needs that the military has regarding military research and there are some, particularly because of the casualties we’ve suffered recently, I can understand it,"" the senator continued. ""But these are types of research that simply have no place in my opinion in (the Defense Department). They ought to be done in (the National Institutes of Health)."" Chambliss complained there is little coordination between the research done by the Defense Department and the National Institutes of Health. PolitiFact Georgia was unaware that the Defense Department was doing that kind of research. We’re not early-risers like the Army. We embarked on a mission to determine whether the senator was correct that the military was conducting research on these serious conditions and whether his math was correct about how much in taxpayer dollars it was spending on such work. In late 1992, Congress began to set aside annual funding toward research of various illnesses and diseases to be done by the Defense Department. Some of the research is for conditions that appeared directly related to the battlefield, such as Gulf War Illness and traumatic brain injuries. Other research is for conditions faced by Americans that are not necessarily military-related. The list of conditions includes, as Chambliss noted, breast cancer, lung cancer, ovarian cancer and prostate cancer. As Chambliss told it, the now-deceased Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaskan Republican, asked for some prostate cancer research dollars to be allocated to the Defense Department. Chambliss said Stevens later realized those funds should be allocated to the NIH. We looked up the most recent funding totals for the various forms of research. The Defense Department Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs website said $80 million was spent in fiscal year 2013 on prostate cancer research, but the totals were slightly less for the other forms of cancer Chambliss mentioned. The website said $20 million was spent on ovarian cancer research and $120 million on breast cancer research in FY 2013. The 2013 federal fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2012, and ended Sept. 30. Lauren Claffey, a spokeswoman for Chambliss, said he was using numbers for fiscal year 2010. To sum up, Chambliss said the federal government gives the U.S. Department of Defense $80 million a year for prostate cancer research, $25 million a year for ovarian cancer research and $150 million a year for breast cancer research. The senator is correct that there is such a program. The numbers are slightly off for two of the three forms of research. Chambliss used numbers three years older than the most recent material." Claim: The U.S. Department of Defense spends $80 million a year on prostate cancer research, $25 million a year on ovarian cancer research and $150 million a year on breast cancer research.

A:
Senator questions some areas of Defense budget
****