 |
|
|
|||||
Cancer research in the U.S. doesnt rely on a single institution or funding streamits 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, Ive 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 researchdelays 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 therapiesand the patients who have benefited from themowe much to decades of NIH support. 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 administrations 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. Philanthropys support is powerfulbut limited While federal agencies remain the backbone of cancer research funding, philanthropic organizations provide the critical support for breakthroughsespecially 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. 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. I comparison, the federal government has typically contributed roughly five to eight times more than philanthropy to cancer research each year. Industry innovationand 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 dont 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 This is not just a funding issue. Its 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 doesnt leave the field; and creating mechanisms for equity to ensure that research includes and benefits all communities. Cancer research and science have 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 doesnt 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. Jeffrey MacKeigan is a professor of pediatrics and human development at Michigan State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
After Pope Francis’s funeral was held over the weekend, attention has now turned to the papal conclave to choose the next pope. If youre Catholicor if you recently watched Conclaveyou might be hedging your bets on who next will be seated at the Vatican. While the process usually happens behind closed doors, one TikTok user has created a “Fantasy Pope League,” in a similar style to fantasy football, an online game in which players collect points based on how real-life footballers perform each week, allowing people to play along at home and win points based off the real-life conclave. There are 10 times the number of people in this sweepstake as there are cardinals in the Catholic Church, says @itismaxhooray. Making it bigger and therefore more legitimate than the real conclave. @itismaxhooray What name will the new pope take? Youve had your say! Enter the pope fantasy league now! #pope #league #conclave #competition #fun #fantasy #guy #papal #name original sound – Max Although sign-ups have now closed, those playing along will be assigned a cardinal via sweepstake from the College of Cardinals. If they do well in the voting, you do well in the pope league, @itismaxhooray explains. Players must also answer extra questions when they sign up to score “pope points,” which apparently will prove vital when it comes to the final leaderboard. There may even be a prize. @itismaxhooray PLAY THE FANTASY POPE LEAGUE NOW! Link in bio #pope #league #conclave #fun #competition #fantasy original sound – Max The original post has more than 100,000 views at the time of writing and reportedly saw 2,000 sign-ups on its first day. Im a normal girl who can be trusted not to get too intense about the fantasy pope league, one person commented. Immediately signed up, wrote another. 15 years of Catholic school have prepared me for this. Cardinals are now on their way to everyone who registered. Today, the Vatican announced May 7 as the start date for the official conclave. The last two conclaves, held in 2005 to elect Pope Benedict XVI and in 2013 to elect Pope Francis, each lasted two days. Currently, there are 135 cardinals eligible to participate. My cardinal is 40:1 according to Oddschecker, not awful, one player commented. Just me and 99-year-old Angelo Acerbi against the world, wrote another.
Category:
E-Commerce
Martinellis, the apple juice brand that has previously gone viral for its apple-shaped packaging, has issued a voluntary recall of more than 170,000 bottles of juice. The recall comes due to potential patulin contamination. Patulin is a byproduct of mold thats commonly found in rotten apples. Heres what to know. What is the reason for the recall? According to an enforcement report by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Martinellis voluntarily initiated the recall on March 18. The FDA then classified the recall as Class II on April 22, meaning it is considered a situation in which exposure to the product may cause “reversible adverse health consequences,” or where the probability of serious health consequences is “remote.” Fast Company has reached out to Martinellis for comment. The FDA notice says no press release was issued for the recall. According to a statement sent by Martinellis to NBC News: “In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) routine testing indicated that one lot of 10-ounce Martinellis Apple Juice glass bottles (in 4-packs only) produced in December 2023 may contain elevated levels of patulin, a naturally occurring substance produced by molds that can grow in apples. The company added that it has reached out to retailers that received the recalled product, and that any remaining items from the batch in its inventory have been removed. In all, the potential patulin contamination impacted 7,234 cases of apple juice, which equals about 170,000 individual bottles. What product is being recalled? The recall notice is for Martinellis apple juice, packaged in four-packs of 10-ounce cans. Here are the details, according to the FDAs description: Product Description: Apple Juice; clear/translucent bulbous/round glass bottle with white metal screw top lid; (4 10-oz. bottles per pack; 6 packs per case) Package size: 200g package Company Name: S. Martinelli & Company Recall number: F-0734-2025 UPC barcode: 0 41244 04102 2 Best by date: 05DEC2026 Where was the recalled product sold? The affected apple juice was distributed in 28 states: Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Missouri New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Texas Utah Virginia Wisconsin What is patulin? Per the National Library of Medicine, patulin is a mycotoxin produced by a variety of molds, and it’s most commonly found in rotting apples. It is not a particularly potent toxin, but a number of studies have shown that it is genotoxic, which has led to some theories that it may be a carcinogen, though animal studies have remained inconclusive, the National Library of Medicine notes. Side effects of consuming apples or apple juice contaminated with patulin can include stomach irritation, nausea, and vomiting. Has anyone been harmed by the recall? So far, no health issues related to the recall have been reported. What should I do if I have the recalled product? If you have the recalled apple juice, you should not consume. Instead, throw it away. According to the Martinellis website, concerned customers can contact the company through an online form.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||