Cuts to federal funding for cancer research: where philanthropy comes in

The U.S. cancer research ecosystem is highly complex, with academic institutions, federal agencies, private foundations, biomedical startups, institutional investors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and insurance companies all contributing to suboptimal processes, slow progress, and missed opportunities for breakthroughs. The overemphasis on research and discovery undermines the process and outcomes leading to commercialization and cures.

Recent federal funding cuts to biomedical research exacerbate longstanding, underlying challenges, which will have devastating results for patients. In response, many researchers and cancer innovators are calling for private philanthropy to help fill funding gaps.

While it’s unrealistic to expect private philanthropy to fully compensate for current and projected funding shortfalls, private sources of funding can help bridge the “valley of death” that prevents promising treatments from reaching patients.

The immediate challenge of government funding cuts

According to a U.S. Senate Minority Staff report, the current administration cut funding for cancer research from January to March 2025 by 31% compared to 2024. These funding cuts have already placed the future of cancer research in question.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI)—the world’s largest source of funding for cancer research—was one of the biggest targets, losing over $300 million and hundreds of staff members from January to March 2025. Unfortunately, more cuts are anticipated. According to former NCI staff, in a 2026 budget proposal, the NCI’s budget would be reduced by almost $2.7 billion, or 37.2%.

Consequently, researchers are now spending much of their days dealing with or bracing for imminent funding cuts. Researchers who have not received their anticipated funding have lost many of their highly trained research staff who have sought work elsewhere. This has slowed down clinical trials and led to life-threatening delays in innovations reaching patients. 

Longstanding funding gaps in the fight against cancer

Funding gaps have plagued the fight against cancer for decades, especially for early-stage biomedical startups advancing promising treatments and cures. This gap is referred to as the “valley of death,” a term used to describe lab-worthy discoveries that fail to transition into clinical products due to a lack of requisite funding.

The valley of death has deepened in recent years. According to Crunchbase, seed funding for “startups developing cancer drugs and tests, and associated medical devices” has declined from $13.7 billion in 2021 to $8 billion in 2022. Tragically, those ventures closest to getting their innovations to patients often collapse due to limited financing originating from federal, philanthropic, or venture capital sources.

Several biotech startups with promising Phase II results have shuttered or downsized after failing to secure funding for Phase III trials in 2025. For instance, Tempest Therapeutics could not secure the funding for a phase 3 clinical trial to test its first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer. The startup laid off most of its staff to preserve cash as it explores strategic alternatives, such as partnerships and outlicensing.

Consequently, patients with HCC have delayed or no access to the Tempest drug that has already shown meaningful survival benefits. Even with promising science, financial barriers halt progress towards drug approvals and availability for cancer patients.

Fixing the broken system of funding for cancer research

There is a major disconnect between the assumptions funders have about where their dollars are going, and the actual outcomes achieved through federal sources or private philanthropy. In my experience, I have found that many believe that donated and taxed dollars for research will result in badly needed cures for cancer. In fact, far too often, university or government research fails to lead to clinical solutions.

This is where the critical role of biomedical innovators is poorly understood and thus dramatically underfunded. Unfortunately, this means that many great ideas fail to materialize into tools that reach patients. The misalignment continues to generate huge disaffection and frustration among donors, patients, and the general public.

According to a 2019 EMBO Press report, philanthropy, which accounts for less than 3% of funding for medical research and development, tends to support early-stage, investigator-driven research in academic labs, aligning with its mission of generating public knowledge rather than commercializing products. So too, government funding is largely dedicated to university research. Only 2.5% of the NCI’s budget was dedicated to cancer-fighting start-ups in 2023.

Many observers argue that new approaches to public outreach could help break this pattern and bridge the valley of death between discovery and delivery. This involves reshaping the narrative to highlight the potential of biomedical innovation to achieve better patient outcomes. Increasingly, scientists and innovators are sharing their stories—their struggles, breakthroughs, and determination—to translate research into life-saving cures. Popular platforms, from podcasts and videos to influencers and social media channels, can be used to raise awareness among donors and the public about the challenges and opportunities facing biomedical startups working to bring promising solutions to patients.

While the current political, economic, and funding challenges are daunting, they also present an opportunity to raise awareness about the longstanding structural problems in cancer research funding as a key step in identifying new solutions. Many stakeholders, including philanthropists, have a role to play.

Photo credit: Music Beats Cancer