The impact of the changing landscape of NIH funding for the cancer prevention and control research enterprise

Clicks: 2
ID: 338248
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #405 of 407 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 407 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Recent changes in the National Institutes of Health's grant policies have eliminated publicly posted paylines or cutoffs for funding decisions. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget proposed rules that would reshape funding by expanding political oversight. These changes would allow political appointees to assess grants based on alignment with administration-aligned priorities and national interests and suspend or terminate awards viewed as inconsistent with those priorities. Additional proposals would prohibit federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and gender ideology and transitions. In this commentary, the Big 10 Population Science Working Group outlines the challenges and impacts to funding research from the perspective of population scientists. Three key challenges are the prioritization of federal administration-deemed acceptable scientific topics, the expanded role of political appointees in funding decisions, and reduced funding and delays. Impacts include a reduction in the pace of discovery that has made the US a leader in science and medicine, less research conducted at institutions receiving federal funding, and reductions in the scientific workforce and pipeline. We conclude that incorporating criteria beyond scientific merit and public health priorities increases the potential for scientifically meritorious grants to be awarded. This disruption threatens faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion, erodes the scientific pipeline, and diminishes capacity to generate evidence that improves population health. Addressing these problems will require coordinated and sustained advocacy to maintain the strength of the research enterprise. Adoption of these policies risks a decline in advances in cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, survivorship, and population health.
Reference Key
openalex_W7225107527 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sharon L. Manne, Anita Yeomans Kinney, Cheryl L. Thompson, Victoria Lee Champion, Marian Fitzgibbon, Anne Hudson Blaes, Angela J. Fong, Raquel Kelly Kohler, Kelly A. Hirko, Melissa Andrea Simon, William A. Calo, Amy Trentham‐Dietz, Marquita Lewis, Chris Rini, Electra D. Paskett
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djag410
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djag410
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.