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

U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn on May 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn on May 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

What do Kobe Bryant, Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, Alex Trebek, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have in common?

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Using the Military to Stop Riots

National Guard

File footage

Just the Facts: Using the Military to Stop Riots

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

Before President Trump called up the military to stop the L.A. riots this week, has the military ever been called upon to stop protests in the United States?

Keep ReadingShow less
Marines Sent to Los Angeles “Presents a Significant Logistical and Operational Challenge”

Protesters confront National Guard soldiers and police outside of a federal building as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids on June 09, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Marines Sent to Los Angeles “Presents a Significant Logistical and Operational Challenge”

LOS ANGELES, CA - An estimated 700 U.S. Marines are being mobilized from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, approximately 140 miles east of Los Angeles, to Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. This mobilization will position the troops closer to Los Angeles, where they may potentially work alongside National Guard units to protect federal resources and personnel, according to NBC News.

The latest figures from police, nearly 70 individuals were arrested over the weekend during protests. This total includes 29 people arrested on Saturday for failure to disperse and 21 individuals arrested on Sunday on charges ranging from attempted murder involving a Molotov cocktail to looting and failure to disperse, as reported by the LAPD.

Keep ReadingShow less
GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk

Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, makes up about 40% of revenue for Community Health Centers, which serve almost 32 million mostly low-income people nationwide.

Arlette/Adobe Stock

GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk

People who depend on Community Health Centers and rural hospitals could have trouble finding care if Medicaid cuts just approved by the U.S. House are signed into law.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 8 million people nationwide could lose coverage over the next decade, including more than 3 million in California.

Lizette Escobedo, vice president of government relations and civic engagement at AltaMed Health Services in Los Angeles, said the costs to treat a flood of uninsured patients would overwhelm community clinics and small town hospitals.

"If this bill were to be implemented over the next 10 years, some federally qualified health centers and hospitals especially in the rural areas would probably have to close their doors," Escobedo projected.

Supporters of the bill said the savings are needed to fund other administration priorities, including President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts. The bill would also tighten work requirements for Medicaid coverage and force people to reapply every six months instead of annually. And it would slash tens of billions in federal funding to states like California allowing health coverage for undocumented people.

Joe Dunn, chief policy officer for the National Association of Community Health Centers, called the proposed cuts counterproductive, in terms of keeping people healthy and keeping costs down.

"Health centers actually save money in the long run, because it reduces utilization of emergency departments and other kind of higher-cost settings, like inpatient hospitalization," Dunn explained.

The bill is now in the U.S. Senate.

GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk was originally published by the Public News Service and is republished with permission.

Keep ReadingShow less