As more than 20,000 researchers, clinicians, patients, and students from all over the world descended on Chicago for the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR)’s 2025 Annual Meeting, the recent upheaval at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) never seemed far from people’s minds. Over the past few months, delays or outright cancellations of NIH grants and firing of NIH staff have halted critical research. With many cancer clinical trials being delayed or stopped altogether, cancer patients’ lives as well as those of people who will be diagnosed with cancer in the future now hang in the balance.

Past investment in cancer research fueled today’s advances

From immunotherapies and early detection tests to treating tumors based on their molecular characteristics rather than their location in the body, cancer treatments have advanced significantly because of investment in cancer research over the past few decades.

In his acceptance speech as the recipient of a 2025 AACR Distinguished Public Service Award, Larry Saltzman — a retired family physician, patient advocate, and cancer patient — explained how he has so far survived 10 cancer relapses, two rounds of CAR T cell therapy, and a stem cell transplant. Like many people with cancer, he has moved from treatment to treatment, hoping that before his current medication stops working, research on another drug will catch up. But, he said, the firings and funding cuts at the NIH are “a crushing blow not only to the development of future cancer therapies, but to all medical research.” He added, “A reduced investment today means reduced treatment options for too many future cancer patients.”

A reduced investment today means reduced treatment options for too many future cancer patients.
 – Larry Saltzman, cancer advocate and patient

The sentiment of bringing results to patients as quickly as possible echoed throughout the many talks at this year’s meeting. For example, in her research presentation for the Outstanding Achievement in Clinical Cancer Research award, Alice Shaw, the Chief of Strategic Partnerships at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, talked about one of her patients, Linnea Olson. Olson had been living with lung cancer for 16 years, but she passed away just six months before a drug that potentially could have treated her cancer entered clinical trials. “We all have to work harder and move faster,” Shaw said. “Patients like Linnea are waiting.”

Drug development depends on NIH support

The initial research that underlies drugs developed by biotech and pharmaceutical companies relies on basic and translational research funded primarily by the NIH. However, this reliance on NIH-funded research is often not well understood by those making NIH and FDA policy decisions. In a session titled “Cancer Research at a Crossroads: Sustaining Progress Against Cancer for the Benefit of Patients,” University of Pennsylvania immunologist E. John Wherry said, “The comment that I often get, living in a purple state, from some of our representatives is that, ‘Oh well, science and drug discovery, drug development — that’s the job of the pharmaceutical industry.’ And I think it’s really important for us to explain how the ecosystem works.” He added that of the “250-some drugs that were FDA approved between 2010 and 2019, 99.4 percent of them came from NIH-funded research.”

This research, he said, supports the companies that sell laboratories their research supplies. It also leads to the construction of new manufacturing facilities for therapeutics.

“If we’re not leading that science, we’re going to have to buy it from somebody else in the form of drugs from overseas, in terms of clinical trials on patients that are in other countries and may or may not represent our patients in the US,” he said.

Losing the next generation of cancer scientists

In the same “Cancer Research at a Crossroads” session, Patricia LoRusso, Yale University cancer researcher and AACR’s outgoing President, reported results from a recent AACR survey. The survey revealed that 70 percent of respondents had seen delays or cancellations of PhD programs or postdoctoral appointments, 45 percent lost fellowships or training grants, and 55 percent said that their colleagues were leaving the field. “What we risk losing now is not only a generation of scientists, but the discoveries that they will never have a chance to make,” LoRusso said.

She also revealed that 68 percent of survey respondents said that they had been asked to reframe their research if it happened to relate to politically sensitive topics. “What concerns me most is the atmosphere that this creates. When researchers start altering proposals not because the science is weak but because the politics are difficult, something much deeper is lost,” LoRusso said. “We lose the ability to move forward with truth.”

During the same session, University of Virginia postdoctoral researcher, Cody Wolf, said that when he talked with undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdocs, they all expressed concerns about their future in scientific research. But, he added, they still felt hope too. “They say, ‘I’m still here at this conference to make my career happen. I’m here to make connections. I’m here to do good science. I’m here to do what I love to do,’” he said.

A call to action

On the same panel, the most recent former NIH Director, Monica Bertagnolli, explained that when administrations change, there is often a change in NIH priorities. As one example, the decision to stop using chimpanzees in medical research was the decision from a new administration. They, she said, “made a really positive change,” but “in the first 98 days of this administration, we really see unprecedented and unfortunately harmful administrative policies.”

She highlighted, however, that when people have used their voices to advocate for cut programs, the new administration has brought some of them back. “Fight for your science,” she said.

Former National Cancer Institute Director, W. Kimryn Rathmell, explained that one of the best ways to do that is to learn how to tell stories about research and explain how the research that scientists do benefits others. She encouraged the researchers to tell their stories widely — not just in scientific spaces — but in community groups, on airplanes, and even at stores like Staples.

“I believe it is a moment to consider what this community stands for and what we must stand up to.” 
- Patricia LoRusso, Yale University

Kristen Dahlgren — a journalist, cancer patient, and founder of the Cancer Vaccine Coalition — echoed this sentiment powerfully when she said of cancer patients, “We have to tell those stories like their lives and the lives of their loved ones depend on it — because they do.”

Most of all, LoRusso added, now is the time to act. 

“This is not a time to wait and see. It is a time to be clear-eyed about what is happening and to decide what the role each of us is willing to play,” she said. “I believe it is a moment to consider what this community stands for and what we must stand up to.”

At this, the audience leapt to their feet, giving LoRusso a standing ovation.