Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Cancer Research in the U.S. Is World Class Because of Its Broad Base of Funding − With the Government Pulling Out, Its Future Is Uncertain

Cancer Research in the U.S. Is World Class Because of Its Broad Base of Funding − With the Government Pulling Out, Its Future Is Uncertain

Without federal support, the lights will turn off in many labs across the country.

Getty Images, Thomas Barwick

Cancer research in the U.S. doesn’t rely on a single institution or funding stream − it’s a complex ecosystem made up of interdependent parts: academia, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology startups, federal agencies and private foundations. As a cancer biologist who has worked in each of these sectors over the past three decades, I’ve seen firsthand how each piece supports the others.

When one falters, the whole system becomes vulnerable.


The United States has long led the world in cancer research. It has spent more on cancer research than any other country, including more than US$7.2 billion annually through the National Cancer Institute alone. Since the 1971 National Cancer Act, this sustained public investment has helped drive dramatic declines in cancer mortality, with death rates falling by 34% since 1991. In the past five years, the Food and Drug Administration has approved over 100 new cancer drugs, and the U.S. has brought more cancer drugs to the global market than any other nation.

But that legacy is under threat. Funding delays, political shifts and instability across sectors have created an environment where basic research into the fundamentals of cancer biology is struggling to keep traction and the drug development pipeline is showing signs of stress.

These disruptions go far beyond uncertainty and have real consequences. Early-career scientists faced with unstable funding and limited job prospects may leave academia altogether. Mid-career researchers often spend more time chasing scarce funding than conducting research. Interrupted research budgets and shifting policy priorities can unravel multiyear collaborations. I, along with many other researchers, believe these setbacks will slow progress, break training pipelines and drain expertise from critical areas of cancer research – delays that ultimately hurt patients waiting for new treatments.

A 50-year foundation of federal investment

The modern era of U.S. cancer research began with the signing of the National Cancer Act in 1971. That law dramatically expanded the National Cancer Institute, an agency within the National Institutes of Health focusing on cancer research and education. The NCI laid the groundwork for a robust national infrastructure for cancer science, funding everything from early research in the lab to large-scale clinical trials and supporting the training of a generation of cancer researchers.

This federal support has driven advances leading to higher survival rates and the transformation of some cancers into a manageable chronic or curable condition. Progress in screening, diagnostics and targeted therapies – and the patients who have benefited from them – owe much to decades of NIH support.

The Trump administration is cutting billions of dollars of biomedical research funding.youtu.be

But federal funding has always been vulnerable to political headwinds. During the first Trump administration, deep cuts to biomedical science budgets threatened to stall the progress made under initiatives such as the 2016 Cancer Moonshot. The rationale given for these cuts was to slash overall spending, despite facing strong bipartisan opposition in Congress. Lawmakers ultimately rejected the administration’s proposal and instead increased NIH funding. In 2022, the Biden administration worked to relaunch the Cancer Moonshot.

This uncertainty has worsened in 2025 as the second Trump administration has cut or canceled many NIH grants. Labs that relied on these awards are suddenly facing funding cliffs, forcing them to lay off staff, pause experiments or shutter entirely. Deliberate delays in communication from the Department of Health and Human Services have stalled new NIH grant reviews and funding decisions, putting many promising research proposals already in the pipeline at risk.

Philanthropy’s support is powerful – but limited

While federal agencies remain the backbone of cancer research funding, philanthropic organizations provide the critical support for breakthroughs – especially for new ideas and riskier projects.

Groups such as the American Cancer Society, Stand Up To Cancer and major hospital foundations have filled important gaps in support, often funding pilot studies or supporting early-career investigators before they secure federal grants. By supporting bold ideas and providing seed funding, they help launch innovative research that may later attract large-scale support from the NIH.

Without the bureaucratic constraints of federal agencies, philanthropy is more nimble and flexible. It can move faster to support work in emerging areas, such as immunotherapy and precision oncology. For example, the American Cancer Society grant review process typically takes about four months from submission, while the NIH grant review process takes an average of eight months.

Ted Kennedy Jr., right, and Jeff Keith raise money for the American Cancer Society in 1984.  Mikki Ansin/Getty Images

But philanthropic funds are smaller in scale and often disease-specific. Many foundations are created around a specific cause, such as advancing cures for pancreatic, breast or pediatric cancers. Their urgency to make an impact allows them to fund bold approaches that federal funders may see as too preliminary or speculative. Their giving also fluctuates. For instance, the American Cancer Society awarded nearly $60 million less in research grants in 2020 compared with 2019.

While private foundations are vital partners for cancer research, they cannot replace the scale and consistency of federal funding. Total U.S. philanthropic funding for cancer research is estimated at a few billion dollars per year, spread across hundreds of organizations. In comparison, the federal government has typically contributed roughly five to eight times more than philanthropy to cancer research each year.

Industry innovation − and its priorities

Private-sector innovation is essential for translating discoveries into treatments. In 2021, nearly 80% of the roughly $57 billion the U.S. spent on cancer drugs came from pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Many of the treatments used in oncology today, including immunotherapies and targeted therapies, emerged from collaborations between academic labs and industry partners.

But commercial priorities don’t always align with public health needs. Companies naturally focus on areas with strong financial returns: common cancers, projects that qualify for fast-track regulatory approval, and high-priced drugs. Rare cancers, pediatric cancers and basic science often receive less attention.

Industry is also saddled with uncertainty. Rising R&D costs, tough regulatory requirements and investor wariness have created a challenging environment to bring new drugs to market. Several biotech startups have folded or downsized in the past year, leaving promising new drugs stranded in limbo in the lab before they can reach clinical trials.

Without federal or philanthropic entities to pick up the slack, these discoveries may never reach the patients who need them.

A system under strain

Cancer is not going away. As the U.S. population ages, the burden of cancer on society will only grow. Disparities in treatment access and outcomes persist across race, income and geography. And factors such as environmental exposures and infectious diseases continue to intersect with cancer risk in new and complex ways.

Addressing these challenges requires a strong, stable and well-coordinated research system. But that system is under strain. National Cancer Institute grant paylines, or funding cutoffs, remain highly competitive. Early-career researchers face precarious job prospects. Labs are losing technicians and postdoctoral researchers to higher-paying roles in industry or to burnout. And patients, especially those hoping to enroll in clinical trials, face delays, disruptions and dwindling options.

Researchers have been rallying to protect the future of science in the U.S.  AP Photo/John McDonnell

This is not just a funding issue. It’s a coordination issue between the federal government, academia and industry. There are currently no long-term policy solutions that ensure sustained federal investment, foster collaboration between academia and industry, or make room for philanthropy to drive innovation instead of just filling gaps.

I believe that for the U.S. to remain a global leader in cancer research, it will need to recommit to the model that made success possible: a balanced ecosystem of public funding, private investment and nonprofit support. Up until recently, that meant fully funding the NIH and NCI with predictable, long-term budgets that allow labs to plan for the future; incentivizing partnerships that move discoveries from bench to bedside without compromising academic freedom; supporting career pathways for young scientists so talent doesn’t leave the field; and creating mechanisms for equity to ensure that research includes and benefits all communities.

Cancer research and science has come a long way, saving about 4.5 million lives in the U.S. from cancer from 1991 to 2022. Today, patients are living longer and better because of decades of hard-won discoveries made by thousands of researchers. But science doesn’t run on good intentions alone. It needs universities. It needs philanthropy. It needs industry. It needs vision. And it requires continued support from the federal government.


Cancer Research in the U.S. Is World Class Because of Its Broad Base of Funding − With the Government Pulling Out, Its Future Is Uncertain was originally published by The Conversation and is shared with permission.

Jeffrey MacKeigan, Ph.D., is a senior advisor for Michigan State University Office of Research and Innovation.

Read More

America’s Child Care System Relies on Immigrants. Without Them, It Could Collapse

Maggi, a child care provider in New Mexico, works on an art project with a preschooler in her care. Parents have pulled children out of Maggi’s child care program as immigration enforcement has ramped up.

JACKIE MADER/THE HECHINGER REPORT

America’s Child Care System Relies on Immigrants. Without Them, It Could Collapse

This story about immigrants in New Mexico was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Maggi’s home in a suburban neighborhood here is a haven for local families. It’s a place where after just a few weeks in Maggi’s family-run child care program this spring, one preschooler started calling Maggi “mama” and Maggi’s husband “papa.” Children who have graduated from Maggi’s program still beg their parents to take them to her home instead of school.

Keep ReadingShow less
Former President Donald Trump

While the 870-page bill covers a whole host of issues and federal programs, there are four big takeaways from the BBB.

The Washington Post/Getty Images

The Big Beautiful Bill Reflects the Trump Administration’s Priorities, Not America’s

If a budget is a mirror of values, what does the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) say about America?

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law Congressional Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill.” If you held up the bill to a mirror, most Americans would probably say that what they saw in the reflection was anything but beautiful.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments
File:Flooding of the Guadalupe River near Kerrville, Texas in 2025 ...

Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments

The deadly Texas floods have receded, leaving lost and shattered lives. Donald Trump tells us not to politicize the moment, with spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt calling the floods “an act of God,” meaning no one is responsible. However, because the floods and the climate disasters that follow them make the costs heart-wrenchingly visible, they give us the chance to discuss root causes and the choices we face. If we don’t have these conversations, these teachable moments will quickly fade.

Democratic pushback has focused primarily on cutbacks to the National Weather Service and FEMA, leaving critical offices understaffed and undermining the ability to plan effectively. But the pushback has focused less on climate change, even as, the day before the floods, the Republicans paid for massive tax breaks for the wealthiest in part by slashing federal support for wind, solar, battery, and electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and other investments that gave us a chance to join China and Europe in leading the technologies of the future. So we need to discuss the choices presented to us by this tragedy — and all the others that will come.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series
low angle photography of beige building

Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series

In Part One of this three-part series, Pat Merloe explored the impact of the political environment, the need for constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the malign effects of proof of citizenship on voting.

In Part Two, Merloe explored the harmful effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department on voting rights, and the effects of political retribution.

Part Three: Attacks on the Courts, and the Need to Defend Universal and Equal Suffrage

As noted in Parts One and Two of this series, multipoint attacks against trustworthy elections are underway with just 16 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less