Jeffrey MacKeigan, Michigan State University

Cancer research in the U.S. doesn’t rely on a single institution or funding stream − it’s 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, I’ve 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 research – delays 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 therapies – and the patients who have benefited from them – owe 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 administration’s 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.

Philanthropy’s support is powerful – but limited

While federal agencies remain the backbone of cancer research funding, philanthropic organizations provide the critical support for breakthroughs – especially 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. In comparison, the federal government has typically contributed roughly five to eight times more than philanthropy to cancer research each year.

Industry innovation − and 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 don’t 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. It’s 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 doesn’t leave the field; and creating mechanisms for equity to ensure that research includes and benefits all communities.

Cancer research and science has 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 doesn’t 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, Professor of Pediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Meghan Wilson, Michigan State University and John Kuk, Michigan State University

As outside temperatures dropped to the low- to mid-teens Fahrenheit on Feb. 10, 2025, two children died of carbon monoxide toxicity in a family van parked in a Detroit casino parking garage.

We are political scientists who study urban and housing public policies, and in the months since this tragedy, we took a deep look at the trends in homelessness and housing policies that foreshadowed the events of that night.

More kids are experiencing homelessness

One important trend is that the number of homeless children in the city reached a record high in 2024. This is true even though the overall numbers of people experiencing homelessness in the city is declining overall.

According to the Point-in-Time count, 455 children were experiencing homelessness in Detroit on Jan. 31, 2024, up from 312 the year before. The count captures data for one night each year.

Most of these children were unhoused but considered sheltered because they had a place to sleep in an emergency shelter or transitional housing, or were able to temporarily stay with family or friends.

Nineteen of the kids were unsheltered – meaning they were sleeping in places not designed for human habitation, like cars, parks or abandoned buildings.

A different set of data comes from the Detroit Public Schools. The district looked at the entire 2022-2023 school year and found that roughly 1 in 19 students were unhoused at some point during that nine-month period — more than double the number in the 2019-2020 school year.

A lack of temporary solutions

The lack of adequate funding and staffing in the city’s shelter system means unhoused people often struggle to access temporary shelter beds.

That includes kids. Even though the city prioritizes giving beds to the most vulnerable, the number of unsheltered children of school age has nearly tripled in three years, rising from an estimated 48 in the school year beginning in September 2019 to 142 in the school year beginning in September 2022. These figures align with the rise in unsheltered children recorded in the one-night Point-in-Time count, which increased from four in 2016 to 19 in 2024.

The end of COVID-era funding that prevented many evictions is likely to increase the need for shelter and put additional strain on Detroit’s response to the crisis.

Gaps in a vital system

Children who experience housing insecurity are often caught in the middle of bureaucracy and failed regulation.

The mother of the children who died in February had reached out to the city in November 2024 when they were staying with a family member. The mother noted that she wanted to keep all five of her children together.

According to a report issued by the city, the Detroit Housing Authority did not follow up with her. Her situation was not considered an emergency at the time of contact since she was sheltered with family.

At the time of the call, the family was a Category 2: immediate risk of homelessness – in other words, not the highest priority under the emergency shelter grants guideline. If the city had deemed the situation an emergency, protocol would be to dispatch immediate support for the family.

The mother moved her family to the van after the request for help failed to provide a solution.

The Detroit mayor’s office admitted that the family fell through the cracks and promised to expand available shelter beds and require homeless outreach employees to visit any unhoused families that call for help.

“We have to make sure that we do everything possible to make sure that this doesn’t happen again,” Deputy Mayor Melia Howard told local media.

More than 8 in 10 placed on wait list

According to records from the Coordinated Assessment Model Detroit, the system responsible for connecting individuals to shelters, 82% of calls do not result in immediate help but rather being placed on a shelter waitlist. Similar to instances across the country, the wait time is long.

Families in Detroit face an average wait of 130 days, while unaccompanied youth typically wait around 50 days.

The long wait for shelter has contributed to the rise in people living on the streets or in their vehicles. The number of unsheltered individuals — including both adults and children — doubled from 151 in 2015 to 305 in 2024. This trend of increasing unsheltered homelessness contrasts with the overall decline in the total number of homeless people in the city, which is down from a peak of 2,597 in 2015.

Children need safety and security to thrive.

Their access to stable housing depends on their parents and what the adults in their life are able to provide. As rents increase in the city, some children are left vulnerable.

Stricter regulations

Over the past decade, Detroit, like many other U.S. cities, has experienced rising housing costs while wages fail to keep up, particularly for long-term residents.

Since 2021, the number of rentals in the city has increased by 51%.

Rents are also up. Since 2017, the average rent in Detroit has increased 55% for single-family homes and 43% for multifamily homes.

While inflation and increased maintenance costs contribute to this rise, stricter rental regulations like the heightened enforcement of housing codes, expanded tenant protections and higher compliance cost for landlords have played an important role.

Some landlords pass the expense of these regulations on to tenants, making housing less affordable. Others leave their properties vacant, pushing up prices by lessening the supply.

The current average fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Detroit is $1,314 per month. For the typical household in the city, this basic shelter cost, not including utilities, makes up 41% of the household income.

For the lowest-income households, any unexpected expense can disrupt a delicate financial balance and lead to eviction and homelessness. Children in these situations often face major instability, moving between shelters – or, as in the case of the children who died in February, sleeping in cars.

This kind of displacement disrupts education, strains mental health and increases exposure to danger.

Detroit’s stricter housing regulations may have improved conditions for some renters, but a report by Outlier Media shows that only 8% of landlords are in compliance, leaving legacy residents in subpar rentals at higher prices.

And these new rules have victims who are too often ignored until tragedy strikes.

Meghan Wilson, Assistant Professor of American Politics and Public Policy, Michigan State University and John Kuk, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tim Weninger, University of Notre Dame and Ernesto Verdeja, University of Notre Dame

Imagine a country with deep political divisions, where different groups don’t trust each other and violence seems likely. Now, imagine a flood of political images, hateful memes and mocking videos from domestic and foreign sources taking over social media. What is likely to happen next?

The widespread use of social media during times of political trouble and violence has made it harder to prevent conflict and build peace. Social media is changing, with new technologies and strategies available to influence what people think during political crises. These include new ways to promote beliefs and goals, gain support, dehumanize opponents, justify violence and create doubt or dismiss inconvenient facts.

At the same time, the technologies themselves are becoming more sophisticated. More and more, social media campaigns use images such as memes, videos and photos – whether edited or not – that have a bigger impact on people than just text.

It’s harder for AI systems to understand images compared with text. For example, it’s easier to track posts that say “Ukrainians are Nazis” than it is to find and understand fake images showing Ukrainian soldiers with Nazi symbols. But these kinds of images are becoming more common. Just as a picture is worth a thousand words, a meme is worth a thousand tweets.

Our team of computer and social scientists has tackled the challenge of interpreting image content by combining artificial intelligence methods with human subject matter experts to study how visual social media posts change in high-risk situations. Our research shows that these changes in social media posts, especially those with images, serve as strong indicators of coming mass violence.

Surge of memes

Our recent analysis found that in the two weeks leading up to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine there was a nearly 9,000% increase in the number of posts and a more than 5,000% increase in manipulated images from Russian milbloggers. Milbloggers are bloggers who focus on current military conflicts.

These huge increases show how intense Russia’s online propaganda campaign was and how it used social media to influence people’s opinions and justify the invasion.

This also shows the need to better monitor and analyze visual content on social media. To conduct our analysis, we collected the entire history of posts and images from the accounts of 989 Russian milbloggers on the messaging app Telegram. This includes nearly 6 million posts and over 3 million images. Each post and image was time-stamped and categorized to facilitate detailed analysis.

Media forensics

We had previously developed a suite of AI tools capable of detecting image alterations and manipulations. For instance, one detected image shows a pro-Russian meme mocking anti-Putin journalist and former Russian soldier Arkady Babchenko, whose death was faked by Ukrainian security services to expose an assassination plot against him.

The meme features the language “gamers don’t die, they respawn,” alluding to video game characters who return to life after dying. This makes light of Babchenko’s predicament and illustrates the use of manipulated images to convey political messages and influence public opinion.

This is just one example out of millions of images that were strategically manipulated to promote various narratives. Our statistical analysis revealed a massive increase in both the number of images and the extent of their manipulations prior to the invasion.

Political context is critical

Although these AI systems are very good at finding fakes, they are incapable of understanding the images’ political contexts. It is therefore critical that AI scientists work closely with social scientists in order to properly interpret these findings.

Our AI systems also categorized images by similarity, which then allowed subject experts to further analyze image clusters based on their narrative content and culturally and politically specific meanings. This is impossible to do at a large scale without AI support.

For example, a fake image of French president Emmanuel Macron with Ukrainian governor Vitalii Kim may be meaningless to an AI scientist. But to political scientists the image appears to laud Ukrainians’ outsize courage in contrast to foreign leaders who have appeared to be afraid of Russian nuclear threats. The goal was to reinforce Ukrainian doubts about their European allies.

Meme warfare

The shift to visual media in recent years brings a new type of data that researchers haven’t yet studied much in detail.

Looking at images can help researchers understand how adversaries frame each other and how this can lead to political conflict. By studying visual content, researchers can see how stories and ideas are spread, which helps us understand the psychological and social factors involved.

This is especially important for finding more advanced and subtle ways people are influenced. Projects like this also can contribute to improving early warning efforts and reduce the risks of violence and instability.

Tim Weninger, Collegiate Proessor of Engineering, University of Notre Dame and Ernesto Verdeja, Associate Professor of Peace Studies and Global Politics, University of Notre Dame

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.