logo
Cancer experts alarmed over ‘gut-wrenching' Trump plan to cut research spending by billions

Cancer experts alarmed over ‘gut-wrenching' Trump plan to cut research spending by billions

The Guardian4 hours ago

More patients may die as a result of plans drawn up by the Trump administration to cut billions of dollars from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), veteran federal government workers and experts have warned.
Nearly $2.7bn would be cut from the agency, which is the largest funder of cancer research in the world – a decline of 37.2% from the previous year – under a budget proposal for 2026, in the latest effort to cut staff and funding.
'These cuts are absolutely gut wrenching,' Erin Lavik, former deputy director and chief technology officer at the NCI's division of cancer prevention, told the Guardian.
Lavik was fired along with a swath of probationary workers at the institute in February; put on administrative leave in response to a judge's ruling to halt the firings in March; and then terminated again in April.
'We're not making things more efficient or better,' she said. 'What's being left is sort of the non-impactful iterative work, and we're pruning all of the potential for transformative science.'
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network has cautioned that the proposed cuts 'will set this nation back dramatically in our ability to reduce death and suffering' and noted that cancer is expected to kill more than 618,000 Americans this year.
Julie Nickson, vice-president of Federal Advocacy and Coalitions, said: 'This wouldn't just be a blow to science, it's a blow to families, communities, and our economy. Every day counts in the fight against cancer and with more than 2 million Americans expected to be diagnosed with this horrible disease in 2025 alone, now is not the time to go backwards.'
Jennifer R Brown, secretary of the American Society of Hematology and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, told the Guardian that cuts under Donald Trump have 'already been devastating', with key research halted that can't easily be restarted.
'What the public needs to know is that the science that may not sound so obvious, or that they may not know that much about, is really what drives our cancer treatments and our cancer cures. And so if we cut that, we're going to lose it,' said Brown.
Cancer research historically funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which houses the NCI, 'is the basic science that figures out what to target in the cancer cell', she said. 'Then a drug may be developed that may be from an academic, it may be from a pharma company, but the trials are then also run by academics and pharma in collaboration, and academics who are funded by NIH, who do the legwork to figure out how the drug is working in patients.
'Pharma companies take the drug to the finish line. And so if we don't have this basic research, we're not going to be able to identify new targets, and that means we're not going to have new therapies, and ultimately more patients may die.'
Brown sees a direct link between NIH-funded academic research and cancer drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia that helped patients live longer.
'People who would have died in a few months, lived for years with the first version of this drug,' she said.
Hundreds of staff have been terminated from the NCI in recent months, including dozens of communications workers. 'Our website, cancer.gov, is used worldwide and is the ground truth for cancer information,' said one fired communications employee at the institute, who requested to remain anonymous. 'Science isn't finished until it's communicated.'
Between 28 February and 8 April, more than $180m in NCI grants were cancelled by the Trump administration.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
NIH declined to comment, deferring to comments on the budget proposal cuts to the office of management and budget, which did not respond to requests for comment.
NIH did not comment on how many employees at the agency remain after several rounds of cuts and layoffs.
Lavik said the cuts are likely to threaten large-scale research programs, such as the National Community Oncology Research program, which covers community hospitals all over the US and ensures patients have access to clinical trials, cutting edge cancer care, prevention and screenings.
'I am deeply concerned about the future of these really important clinical trials programs that are really hard to rebuild if you stop them,' she said. 'In the prevention program, there are large scale screening trials, and they have large data sets. We were working really hard on policies to make those data sets more accessible and available to the research community. And we're all gone.'
Drastic cuts across federal science funding is causing scientists to consider leaving science and eliminating opportunities for younger scientists to enter training pipelines as undergraduate researchers, graduate researchers and postdocs, according to Lavik.
'The things that are transformative are fundamentally high-risk, high-reward research,' she said. 'We start to move into the clinic, and that's what leads to the new kinds of treatments that don't just help a little bit, but really change the face of how we treat patients, how we prevent cancers, how we treat other conditions.
'You have to be willing to do lots and lots of things that don't work. There are so many ways we should be more efficient about what we do. But to do that, you really need those young scientists, those new people in the field; you need the people who've come into the NIH and the NCI, who are thinking differently about doing things and willing to take those big swings.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court expected to rule on Obamacare preventive care task force
US Supreme Court expected to rule on Obamacare preventive care task force

Reuters

time9 minutes ago

  • Reuters

US Supreme Court expected to rule on Obamacare preventive care task force

WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday on the legality of a key element of the Obamacare law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive medical care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. The federal government has appealed a lower court's determination that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under Obamacare has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. Its 16 members are appointed by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. Several individual Christian plaintiffs and two small businesses sued in federal court in Texas in 2020 to challenge the task force's structure. It was the latest in a years-long series of challenges to Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court. Before the case was narrowed to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs had included a religious objection to being required to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. They claimed that such drugs "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use." The U.S. government's appeal of the decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially was filed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration before being taken up by Republican President Donald Trump's administration. Public health advocates had warned that life-saving tests and treatments that have been cost-free under most insurance plans may become subject to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them, if the justices upheld the 5th Circuit's ruling. A key question in the case was whether the task force wields power to such an extent that its members, under the Constitution's "appointments clause," are "principal officers" who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate or "inferior officers" not subject to these requirements. The task force is made up of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. It reviews medical evidence and public feedback and issues recommendations about which preventive services would be most effective for detecting illnesses earlier or addressing ailments before a patient's condition worsens. The task force has identified, opens new tab dozens of preventive services as having a high or moderate net benefit to patients including screenings to detect diabetes and various types of cancer, statin medications to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, and interventions to help patients quit smoking or unhealthy alcohol use. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the task force's structure violates the Constitution, as the plaintiffs claimed. The justices during April 21 arguments in the case posed questions over whether the law gives the HHS secretary the appropriate level of supervision over the task force, including the power to influence its recommendations and fire members at will, or if it operates as a largely independent governmental body whose recommendations effectively have the force of law. The Justice Department urged the justices to view the task force's members as "inferior officers." Hashim Mooppan, a Justice Department lawyer, told the justices that the HHS secretary can remove task force members at will, review their recommendations and prevent them from taking effect, and can require the task force to obtain his approval before it issues any recommendations. The plaintiffs contended that the task force's lack of supervision and insulation from removal makes its members "principal officers." The 5th Circuit's ruling also rejected the government's request to remove certain offending words from the Obamacare provision at issue - a process called severing - in order to make that part of the law conform to the Constitution.

US Supreme Court set to rule in dispute over LGBT storybooks in school classes
US Supreme Court set to rule in dispute over LGBT storybooks in school classes

Reuters

time9 minutes ago

  • Reuters

US Supreme Court set to rule in dispute over LGBT storybooks in school classes

WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday in a bid by Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland to keep their elementary school children out of certain classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read in the latest case involving the intersection of religion and LGBT rights. Parents with children in public schools in Montgomery County, located just outside of Washington, appealed after lower courts declined to order the local school district to let children opt out when these books are read. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has expanded the rights of religious people in several cases in recent years, including in cases involving LGBT people. For instance, the court in 2023 ruled that certain businesses have a right under the First Amendment's free speech protections to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. The school board in Montgomery County approved in 2022 a handful of storybooks that feature LGBT characters as part of its English language-arts curriculum in order to better represent the diversity of families living in the county. The storybooks are available for teachers to use "alongside the many books already in the curriculum that feature heterosexual characters in traditional gender roles," the district said in a filing. The district said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of "social stigma and isolation" among students who believe the books represent them and their families. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. The plaintiffs - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks "promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out." They said the First Amendment protects their right to instill religious beliefs and practices in their children, including on gender and sexuality that are "crucial for their children's ability to fulfill religious aspirations concerning marriage and family." Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty conservative legal group, the parents who sued included Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, Chris Persak, Melissa Persak, Jeff Roman and Svitlana Roman, along with an organization called Kids First that seeks opt-out rights in Montgomery County. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 denied a request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction. The 4th Circuit said that there was no evidence that the storybooks are "being implemented in a way that directly or indirectly coerces the parents or their children to believe or act contrary to their religious faith." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit's decision undermined the right of parents to "protect their children's innocence and direct their religious upbringing." The school board emphasized in a brief to the court that mere exposure to content that parents find religiously objectionable does not violate the First Amendment. The Freedom From Religion Foundation secularism advocacy group in a filing to the Supreme Court supporting the school board said parents should not have the constitutional right "to ensure that all secular education materials conform with their personal religious beliefs." Such a rule would be boundless because "almost any book or idea - however commonplace or innocent - likely contradicts some religious ideals," the group said. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 22. The court's three liberal justices raised concerns about how far opt-outs for students could go beyond storybooks in public schools, offering examples of subjects such as evolution, interracial marriage or women working outside the home that might come up in classes. During the arguments, conservative Justice Samuel Alito cited one of the disputed storybooks that portrays a same-sex wedding and emphasized that the material promotes a moral message "that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with." In another religious rights case involving education, the Supreme Court in a 4-4 ruling on May 22 blocked a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the United States.

Mamdani's NYC primary win sparks surge in anti-Muslim posts, advocates say
Mamdani's NYC primary win sparks surge in anti-Muslim posts, advocates say

Reuters

time9 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Mamdani's NYC primary win sparks surge in anti-Muslim posts, advocates say

WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Anti-Muslim online posts targeting New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani have surged since his Democratic primary upset this week, including death threats and comments comparing his candidacy to the September 11, 2001 attacks, advocates said on Friday. There were at least 127 violent hate-related reports mentioning Mamdani or his campaign in the day after polls closed, said CAIR Action, an arm of the Council on American Islamic Relations advocacy group, which logs such incidents. That marks a five-fold increase over a daily average of such reports tracked earlier this month, CAIR Action said in a statement. Overall, it noted about 6,200 online posts that mentioned some form of Islamophobic slur or hostility in that day long time-frame. Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist and a 33-year-old state lawmaker, declared victory in Tuesday's primary after former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded defeat. Born in Uganda to Indian parents, Mamdani would be the city's first Muslim and Indian American mayor if he wins the November general election. "We call on public officials of every party - including those whose allies are amplifying these smears - to unequivocally condemn Islamophobia," said Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR Action. The advocacy group said its hate monitoring system includes its own scraping and analysis of posts, online submissions by the public and notifications from law enforcement. About 62% of the anti-Muslim posts against Mamdani originated on X, CAIR Action said. People close to Republican President Donald Trump, including one of his sons, are among those spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric, advocates said. Donald Trump Jr, the president's son, wrote on X on Wednesday that "New York City has fallen" while sharing a post that said New Yorkers had "voted for" 9/11. Also on Wednesday, Republican U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted an AI-generated picture of the Statue of Liberty draped in a burqa. President Trump has pursued domestic policies that rights advocates have described as anti-Muslim, including banning travel from some predominantly Muslim or Arab countries in his first term and attempting to deport pro-Palestinian students in his current term. The White House, which did not respond to a request for comment, has denied claims of discrimination against Muslims. Trump and his allies have said they oppose Mamdani and others due to what they call the Democrats' "radical left" ideology. The New York City Police Department said earlier this month its hate crime unit was probing anti-Muslim threats against Mamdani. Manjusha Kulkarni, co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate, which documents hate against Asian Americans, and CAIR said attacks against Mamdani mirrored those endured by other South Asian and Muslim political figures, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Republicans have called Mamdani antisemitic, citing his pro-Palestinian advocacy and his criticism of Israel's military assault on Gaza after an attack by Hamas militants in October 2023. Mamdani has condemned antisemitism and has the backing of New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is Jewish. Lander also ran in the Democratic primary. Rights advocates have noted rising antisemitism and Islamophobia since the start of the Israel-Gaza war, with fatal U.S. incidents including the shooting of two Israeli embassy staff in Washington and the stabbing of a Muslim child in Illinois. Mamdani and other Pro-Palestinian advocates, including some Jewish groups, said their criticism of Israel is wrongly conflated with antisemitism.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store