Cancer research is in its prime. With advances in early cancer detection and targeted immunotherapy approaches, the overall cancer death rate has been steadily declining in the US.1 Research developments helped avoid an estimated 4.1 million cancer-related deaths in the US over the last three decades.
“But the conditions that made this progress possible are beginning to erode,” said Patricia LoRusso, a medical oncologist at the Yale School of Medicine. With the new US administration's policy updates this year, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and universities face huge budget cuts. Amidst battling canceled grant fundings, hiring freezes, and halted clinical trials, US research has taken a hit.
In a panel discussion at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) 2025 annual meeting, LaRusso, along with other scientists and advocates, reflected on how such actions jeopardize cancer research operations and threaten patients’ lives. They also discussed ways to move past such science and health policy changes and maintain momentum in the fight against cancer.
Funding Disruptions Limit Patients’ Access to Lifesaving Therapies
NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, with more than 60,000 grants supporting over 300,000 investigators, noted Monica Bertagnolli, a surgical oncologist and former NIH director. “NIH exists to support the scientific community and, by doing that, support our patients,” she said. “The patients are never far from thought.”
Recent trends, however, paint a grim picture. A recent AACR survey found that 25 percent of cancer researchers faced delays or cancellations in clinical trials, noted LoRusso. “Behind every delay, every cancellation, and every missed opportunity is someone whose life might depend on what we discover next,” she said.
Larry Saltzman, a retired physician and former research director of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, agreed. Saltzman was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma in January 2010. Since then, he has participated in six clinical trials, and undergone more than a dozen treatments, which have helped him survive through 10 relapses.
“Without ongoing funding for cancer research, I, like many others, would not be surviving the dreaded big C,” he said. “I’m living proof of what the NIH research can do.”
When Bertagnolli received a breast cancer diagnosis after a routine mammogram in 2022, she noted that she benefitted from significant medical breakthrough treatments stemming from NIH-funded research. For scientists grappling with funding disruptions, she recommends that they continue fighting for the science that can benefit patients. “I’m so glad that the people who had to fight in the past for the work that they did in breast cancer research…I’m so glad they didn’t give up when I needed them,” she said. “And you can’t do that for the people that come after us and are here today.”
Destabilizing Scientific Research Has Bigger Impacts on the Economy
In addition to supporting biomedical research that may benefit patients, grants funded by the NIH also fuel the economy. A recent report indicated that grants funded by the agency set up more than 400,000 jobs directly, such as for scientists, or indirectly, such as in companies that ship material to researchers.
According to the report, the agency awarded $36 billion in research funding and produced more than $94 billion—amounting to every one dollar of research funding generating $2.56 dollars—of economic activity. “Federal spending on research is the single-best return investment we make as a society,” said Edward John Wherry, a cancer immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
In addition to funding by federal agencies, the private sector and philanthropic foundations also finance scientific research in the US. “It’s a real three-legged stool,” remarked Wherry. “Science will not continue if you take away one leg.”
Moving Past the Budget Cuts
Cody Wolf, a pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Virginia, emphasized the importance of communicating science in these trying times. According to him, conveying how science benefits patients to people who may or may not have a scientific background will help dismantle misinformation and supply correct information
Kimryn Rathwell, former director of the National Cancer Institute and incoming CEO of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, stressed the importance of explaining to nonscientists what cancer research and researchers can do for people. As part of her efforts, she has found unconventional audiences. She spoke to people about the importance of cancer research at community meetings, nursing homes, and even on airplanes. Through this exercise, she realized that most people are curious and willing to lend an ear.
“Every place that I've gone to talk, people are really interested. Everybody cares about cancer. Everybody has a cancer story,” Rathwell said. “So, we have to tell the stories to inform. We have to tell those stories in a way that we can listen and hear what people are looking for from us as well.”
According to Kristen Dahlgren, a journalist and founder of the Cancer Vaccine Coalition, there is another important aspect to communicating about cancer research. As someone who received a breast cancer diagnosis even as her stepson was fighting leukemia, she realized that the current narratives do not offer hope and the promise about cancer research that can save millions of lives.
She’s working on a documentary to communicate the urgency to unite against the common enemy: cancer. “We have to tell stories like [people’s] lives and the lives of their loved ones depend on it,” she said. “Because they do.”
- Zhang Y, Zhang Z. The history and advances in cancer immunotherapy: Understanding the characteristics of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and their therapeutic implications. Cell Mol Immunol. 2020;17(8):807-821.
