![\"\"](\"https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/IMG_1834-1024x577.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
When we completely understand biology, said Dr. Roy Jensen, vice chancellor and director of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, we will understand cancer. \u201cThey\u2019re so intertwined,” he said. “Life is cancer and cancer is life\u201d (Suzanne King\/The Beacon).<\/p>\n
Every year, the University of Kansas Cancer Center must file a report with the National Cancer Institute in order to get its annual grant allotment.<\/p>\n
This year that typically routine report, known in research jargon as a noncompeting renewal, was repeatedly rewritten. Triggering words targeted by the Trump administration had to be eliminated before a $2.8 million allocation was finally funneled<\/a> to the cancer center in mid-September, two months later than expected.<\/p>\n \u201cWe literally spent days and days and days rereading that report, searching for these banned words and coming up with new language,\u201d said Dr. Roy Jensen, director of the cancer center. \u201cWe\u2019re not going to misrepresent (the work) we did or stop talking about it. \u2026 But we\u2019re trying to describe what we did and not use words that are now verboten.\u201d<\/p>\n The experience is not unusual. Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, scientific research and the grants that fund it have been under a microscope.<\/p>\n The administration has terminated or frozen thousands of grants<\/a> without warning. It has moved\u00a0 to drastically limit what research institutions can spend on facilities and support staff, which could devastate university budgets. It has also proposed slashing future funding to the National Science Foundation (NSF) by 56% and cutting funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which includes the National Cancer Institute, by nearly 40%.<\/p>\n \u201cNIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health,\u201d the administration wrote in its budget proposal<\/a>. And the NSF proposed budget, it said, \u201ccuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science.\u201d<\/p>\n But top scientists warn that the new priorities mean that rather than unraveling mysteries about devastating diseases and looking for cures, scientists are spending time trying to claw back lost funding, stop future losses and, like the cancer center\u2019s experience, parse words in grant applications to avoid upsetting the bureaucrats in charge.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not productive,\u201d Jensen said during a recent interview in his office on the KU Medical Center campus in Kansas City.<\/p>\n \u201cMost people in my shoes have always operated under the assumption that the people of the United States and the United States government believed that supporting biomedical research and trying to find cures for all of these god-awful, terrible diseases was an important part of this country\u2019s makeup,\u201d he said. \u201cThat idea is now being tested.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n \t<\/p>\n According to Grant Witness, a scientist-run project tracking the fate of research grants, 5,464 NIH grants<\/a> and 1,978 NSF grants<\/a> have been terminated since Trump returned to office. Of those, 2,860 NIH grants and 617 NSF grants may have been reinstated.<\/p>\n But financial losses are adding up nonetheless. Grant Witness calculates that grants listed as terminated or frozen across both agencies had almost $3 billion in funds committed by the government but not yet spent.<\/p>\n It has tracked 65 NIH or NSF grants in Missouri and Kansas that have been terminated. Of those, five have been reinstated. That amounts to lost grant funding of $30.5 million in Missouri and $7.66 million in Kansas.<\/p>\n In some cases, the Trump administration froze funding for entire institutions, including Harvard University. But scientists across the country \u2014 regardless of where they work \u2014 have been affected.<\/p>\n In a July report<\/a>, The Center for American Progress found that the Trump administration had plans to eliminate 4,000 grants \u2014 in addition to those terminated or frozen \u2014 at more than 600 institutions. The grants, worth some $6.9 billion, were spread across every state.<\/p>\n Grants that fund research on topics the administration finds objectionable, such as gender, race or climate change, have been cut. Others that only appear to be related to one of the banned topics have been caught up in the disruption, too.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, major staffing reductions at the federal grant-making agencies have slowed the flow of money.<\/p>\n As a result, universities and research institutions don\u2019t know what funding to rely on. Some are preemptively cutting staff or reducing the number of graduate students they are admitting. And looming over all of the uncertainty is the ongoing federal government shutdown, and the threat of additional budget cuts to research agencies once Congress finally passes a spending plan.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s an incredibly muddled situation and an enormously disruptive one,\u201d said Noam Ross, a computational researcher who co-founded Grant Witness. \u201cThere are a lot of projects that have a very ambiguous state at the moment.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n \t<\/p>\n Like many institutions, the KU Cancer Center received word earlier this year about grants that would be terminated. The center counts on the federal government for about half of its $80 million annual budget.<\/p>\n Those notices caused research delays and stress among researchers.<\/p>\n \u201cFor the first few months of this administration, it wasn\u2019t quite clear how all of this was going to shake out,\u201d Jensen said. \u201cPeople were still kind of dumbfounded by a lot of the things that were happening.\u201d<\/p>\n Grant terminations were being sent and later rescinded, like a $2 million NIH grant awarded to Jannette Berkley-Patton, a University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine professor. The grant, which had $688,000 in remaining funds, supports a project attempting to increase COVID-19 testing and treatment by partnering with African American churches.<\/p>\n Other grants were being canceled altogether, like a $1.4 million NIH grant to the University of Missouri-Columbia that funded research into the effect of e-cigarette policies on youth tobacco use. The three-year grant was canceled after one year, with about $600,000 unspent.<\/p>\n Michael Pesko, the professor who oversees the graduate student who won the grant, said his lab scraped together money for the student to continue the research for one more year. After that, he said, the student will have to find another funding source.<\/p>\n \u201cSomewhat paradoxically, maybe from the perspective of the people canceling the grant,\u201d Pesko said, \u201cthe work he was doing supported government deregulation and supported that e-cigarettes are overregulated.\u201d<\/p>\n And, as with the cancer center\u2019s grant renewal, many organizations and researchers are experiencing delays in funding. Pesko said the annual allotment for one of his primary grants didn\u2019t come through until four months after the new funding year started.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s obviously really stressful,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s hard to spend money that you don\u2019t know is there or not.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition to existing grants being canceled or delayed, fewer new federal research grants are moving through the pipeline<\/a>, which experts said will have long-term consequences.<\/p>\n Grant reviews known as study sections \u2014 a critical step required before funds are awarded \u2014 have at times ground to a halt under the new administration. And other grants that have already been reviewed and rated remain languishing and unfunded.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the case for a grant application submitted by Joan Lewis-Wambi, associate professor of cancer biology at the KU Cancer Center. Lewis-Wambi is studying triple negative breast cancer in African American women, and wants to investigate if a protein more prolific in that population is related to the disease.<\/p>\n Her grant received top marks when it went through the grant review process, which means it is considered research funding that should be prioritized. But the grant is still waiting to be funded.<\/p>\n Any other year, the money would be in place and research would be well underway, Jensen said. The reason for the current delay is unclear. But Jensen can\u2019t help but wonder if it\u2019s been flagged because of the population involved in the research.<\/p>\n \u201cIs that research allowed?\u201d he said. \u201cUnclear.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n \t<\/p>\n Ultimately the gaps in the grant pipeline will impede progress in treating a host of diseases and answering other scientific questions, said Dr. Elena Fuentes-Afflick, chief scientific officer with the American Association of Medical Colleges.<\/p>\n \u201cWe know that it is damaging,\u201d she said, \u201cbecause that means that good ideas are not being reviewed for funding. \u2026 It slows everything down.\u201d<\/p>\n Anywhere near a 40% reduction in NIH funding, as Trump\u2019s budget proposal suggests, would do lasting damage, said Dr. Ronald Chen, a radiology oncologist who works at the University of Kansas but spoke in his capacity as an individual researcher.<\/p>\n \u201cIt will definitely impact bringing new treatments to patients,\u201d he said. \u201cIt will impact patient survival. It will impact cure rates for patients in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n Chen is leading a national trial of a drug to treat Stage 4 prostate cancer. It will enroll 600 patients across the country and has funding from the National Cancer Institute.<\/p>\n \u201cIf this trial were positive,\u201d Chen said, \u201cit will change the standard of care for Stage 4 prostate cancer.\u201d<\/p>\n But if NIH funding were drastically cut, he\u2019s not sure how much the trial would accomplish.<\/p>\n Chen also worries about what federal funding cuts will mean to his students and young researchers, like his son, a senior in high school, who dreams of being an academic researcher.<\/p>\n Scientists just starting out and students looking for a career may see new restrictions and funding reductions as reasons to pursue a different career. Already, many are looking for positions overseas.<\/p>\n Alejandro S\u00e1nchez Alvarado, president and chief scientific officer with Kansas City\u2019s Stowers Institute, echoed that concern.<\/p>\n \u201cThe broader impact goes well beyond budgets,\u201d he said in an email response to questions. \u201cScientists, particularly early-career researchers, are feeling the pressure. \u2026 There\u2019s a palpable risk of talent drain, with young scientists increasingly exploring opportunities abroad in search of stable support and creative freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n New funding priorities could also reduce the amount of basic research being done, which risks missing out on game-changing breakthroughs. Basic research simply explores, without the goal of creating a treatment or advancing an existing theory. And it can lead to unexpected discoveries and breakthroughs, S\u00e1nchez Alvarado said.<\/p>\n But that research will be severely limited if government funding doesn\u2019t support it.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen early-career scientists feel compelled to adjust their research to survive funding cycles, creative exploration is discouraged,\u201d he said. \u201cThe risk is that researchers invest their energy in predictable, incremental projects rather than bold explorations with the potential for game-changing results.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s what happened when scientists undertook work investigating the immune system. Cellular therapeutics, which help the body\u2019s own cells fight cancer, is a recent advance in treatment of certain cancers. Now the therapy, being studied closely at the KU Cancer Center, is treating cancers that would have been deadly before it came along.<\/p>\n \u201cAs it turns out,\u201d Jensen said, \u201cthat fundamental research has been critical to many of the exciting developments in cancer treatment, particularly over the last 10 years.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n \t<\/p>\n Jensen is well aware of the progress that\u2019s been made understanding and treating cancer over the span of his career.<\/p>\n He will never forget a young patient he saw in 1983, his third year of medical school.<\/p>\n In the late summer, she had a melanoma on her arm that was concerning, but not life threatening. By spring, the aggressive skin cancer had spread throughout her body.<\/p>\n \u201cShe didn\u2019t have a chance in hell,\u201d Jensen said.<\/p>\n The prognosis could have been quite different had that patient needed treatment today. Four decades of biomedical research have brought about treatments \u2014 and cures \u2014 for what used to be some of the most deadly cancer diagnoses.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve seen patients just like her literally be rescued from the jaws of death and go on to do just fine,\u201d Jensen said. \u201cBut back then, she didn\u2019t have any hope whatsoever.\u201d<\/p>\n For Jensen, the memory is a poignant illustration of why the Trump administration\u2019s plans to slash the federal government\u2019s investment in scientific research is a threat to that progress.<\/p>\n \u201cYes, (taxpayers) have invested significant resources in what we do,\u201d Jensen said. \u201cBut we have brought the receipts. And the receipts are, since 1991, cancer mortality has dropped by a third. That\u2019s incredibly impressive. That\u2019s historic. It\u2019s stunning how much improvement there has been.\u201d<\/p>\n Jensen came to KU in 2004, eight years before the university\u2019s cancer center finally gained status as a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and 18 years before it gained the institute\u2019s comprehensive designation.<\/p>\n Fred Logan, a retired Johnson County lawyer who has been a key supporter of the cancer center from its earliest days, said he doesn\u2019t think people understand what\u2019s at stake when federal dollars are taken away from research institutions.<\/p>\n \u201cCancer research that\u2019s been done in this country has been so incredibly successful,\u201d he said, \u201cthe thought just hadn\u2019t occurred to me that there would be a proposal to cut funding to the National Cancer Institute.\u201d<\/p>\n In the early days of KU\u2019s quest to gain NCI designation, Logan led a campaign to pass a one-eighth-cent county sales tax to help fund the cancer center. That Johnson County Education Research Triangle<\/a> tax brings in more than $15 million annually that is split between the cancer center, the KU Edwards Campus and Kansas State University\u2019s Johnson County campus.<\/p>\n It passed overwhelmingly in 2008, at the depth of the Great Recession, in large part, Logan believes, because voters wanted to have better cancer care at home.<\/p>\n Too many people had watched loved ones board planes to travel to far-away cancer centers when they got sick. They wanted the Kansas City area to have closer access to clinical trials and cutting-edge treatments.<\/p>\n Perhaps for similar reasons, the cancer center has attracted $467 million in philanthropic support for its research since 2004.<\/p>\n Logan, who recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to ask lawmakers not to cut federal research dollars in the next budget, said he thinks people still support the investment.<\/p>\n \u201cI think voters would be astonished if they fully comprehended the magnitude of the cuts that have been proposed,\u201d Logan said.<\/p>\n Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, who sits on the Senate appropriations committee, said in a statement he remains committed to maintaining \u201crobust federal investments in cancer research.\u201d That means fully funding NIH, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause of the dedicated work of KU Cancer Center\u2019s leadership, scientists, doctors and researchers,\u201d Moran\u2019s statement said, \u201ceach day we are closer to new treatments, and one day, the cure to cancer.\u201d<\/p>\n In May, the University of Kansas and the KU Health System broke ground on the cancer center\u2019s new $450 million home. The 675,000-square-foot complex, tucked behind the northwest corner of State Line Road and 39th Street, will put all of the research done at the cancer center and the cancer care offered through the health system in one location.<\/p>\n The new facility has been funded so far through federal and state support and private donations, including a $10 million grant from the Bloch Family Foundation and Linda Lyon, and a $100 million gift from the Sunderland Foundation.<\/p>\n In some ways its opening at the end of 2027 will be a manifestation of the progress the cancer center has seen since Jensen first arrived two decades ago. He plans to retire once the new campus is complete.<\/p>\n Jensen is hopeful that Congress will block the Trump administration\u2019s threatened cuts. He believes the worst scenario, a 40% cut, would destroy the future of cancer research and he thinks it will be avoided. But he\u2019s not naive about what has already been lost.<\/p>\n In addition to the billions of grant funding lost, the political intrusion in scientific research will leave a lasting stain, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019ve inserted political appointees into the NIH to oversee the work product of study sections to ensure that the grants that scored the highest align with the political priority,\u201d Jensen said. \u201cThat\u2019s been done before in some very scary circumstances.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s called fascism.\u201d<\/p>\n This article<\/a> first appeared on Beacon: Kansas City<\/a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a>. When we completely understand biology, said Dr. Roy Jensen, vice chancellor and director of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, we will understand cancer. \u201cThey\u2019re so intertwined,” he said. “Life is cancer and cancer is life\u201d (Suzanne King\/The Beacon). Every year, the University of Kansas Cancer Center must file a report with the National Cancer…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6852,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nTerminated and frozen grants<\/h4>\n
Uncertainty across academia<\/h4>\n
A talent drain<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thebeaconnews.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/IMG_1966-1024x577.jpeg\")
\u2018She didn\u2019t have a chance in hell\u2019<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thebeaconnews.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/IMG_1841-1024x576.jpeg\")
![](\"https:\/\/thebeaconnews.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/iconbeacon-150x150.png?crop=1\"){kind=tracking}
<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"