Back
Science

Federal Funding Disruptions Impact Breast Cancer Research at Harvard Medical School

Generated on: Last updated: 3 sources
View source

Funding Crisis at Harvard: Breast Cancer Prevention Lab Loses Staff Amid NIH Grant Freeze

Dr. Joan Brugge, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, is leading a project focused on breast cancer prevention that has experienced significant disruptions due to changes in federal funding. The project is funded by a seven-year, $7 million grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Research Objectives and Findings

Brugge's team has analyzed over 100 breast tissue samples to study the development of breast cancer, from initial cell mutation to tumor formation. In late 2024, the researchers identified specific cells containing the genetic precursors of breast tumors. These cells were found to be common in both cancerous and healthy breast tissue samples.

The lab's next stated objective is to develop methods for detecting, isolating, and eliminating these mutant cells before they can form tumors.

Timeline of Funding Disruptions

In April 2025, the NIH grant for Brugge's lab, along with most federal funding for Harvard researchers, was frozen by the Trump administration. The administration cited the university's handling of antisemitism on campus as the reason for this action.

As a result of the freeze:

  • Some lab staff lost federal fellowships.
  • Others were informed that salary guarantees could not be maintained.
  • The lab experienced a reduction from 18 to 11 employees — a loss of seven staff members.

The NIH funding was restored in September 2025. However, during the freeze, the Trump administration prohibited Harvard researchers, including Brugge, from applying for subsequent multiyear grants. A federal judge later lifted this prohibition, but Brugge had missed the application deadline for a renewal. Her current funding is scheduled to conclude in August 2026.

To address the funding gap, Brugge sought private funding, which enabled the reinstatement of two positions for a minimum of one year.

Broader National Funding Landscape

The future of federal funding for cancer research nationally is subject to different proposals from the Executive and Legislative branches.

  • Proposed Cuts: President Trump has proposed a nearly 40% reduction in the NIH budget for fiscal year 2026. A White House budget message cited "wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies" by the NIH as reasons for the proposed cuts.
  • Congressional Proposals:
    • The House budget plan includes a $48 million increase, bringing the NIH budget to $46.9 billion.
    • The Senate plan proposes an additional $400 million, including $150 million specifically for cancer research.
    • The Senate and House Appropriations Committees proposed setting the NIH's budget at $48.7 billion, an increase of $415 million over the 2025 fiscal year.

These differing budget proposals remain unresolved.

Impact on Staff and Future Researchers

The operational changes in Brugge's lab have affected the development of future cancer researchers. Of the seven staff members who departed in 2025:

  • One relocated internationally to pursue a research and Ph.D. program in Switzerland.
  • One joined a health care management company.
  • Four pursued further education.
  • One remained in a job search.

One former computational biologist (identified as Y) moved to Switzerland for a research and Ph.D. program. Y cited concerns about potential visa implications upon returning to the U.S. for scientific conferences as a factor in the decision to use only an initial.

Brugge stated she has ceased accepting job applicants from outside the U.S. due to an inability to cover the Trump administration's new $100,000 fee for visas for certain foreign researchers. This fee is currently the subject of a legal challenge by the Association of American Universities and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who assert it is misguided and illegal. The Trump administration stated the fee's purpose is to reduce reliance on foreign workers and enhance opportunities for American citizens.

Broader Implications for Cancer Research

Advocates, such as Mark Fleury of the American Cancer Society, have highlighted the role of federally funded research in the 34% decline in the cancer death rate since the early 1990s. Fleury stated that reductions in research funding could affect patient treatment options.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that a 10% cut to the NIH budget could result in two fewer new drugs or treatments annually.

A study co-authored by Pierre Azoulay of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology indicated that over half of FDA-approved drugs developed with NIH funding since 2000 might not have materialized with a 40% smaller NIH budget.

Broader Impacts on Other Research

Separate reports indicate that funding disruptions have affected researchers at other institutions. Sean Eddy, a computational biologist at Harvard, had his NIH grant terminated in 2025, forcing him to lay off his entire team.

According to Jeremy Berg, a former NIH official, the NIH issued approximately 2,300 new grants in early 2026, about half the number from the same period the previous year. The Association of American Universities reported 66% fewer grant awards in the first few months of 2026 compared to 2025. Elizabeth Ginexi, a former NIH program officer, found that of 336 NIH funding forecasts listed as open, 205 had passed their promised posting date with no full announcement published.

Rachael Sirianni, a cancer researcher at UMass Chan Medical School, submitted a grant for pediatric brain cancer treatment and stated it effectively has no chance of being funded in 2026 due to delayed reviews. She reported having to lay off a researcher.

A Health and Human Services spokesperson attributed delays to the government shutdown and congressional Democrats, stating that timelines have returned to typical funding patterns.

Researcher Statements

Joan Brugge: "I'm dedicating approximately half of my time to securing new funding and managing staff concerns, rather than focusing on research." She foresees ongoing operational challenges for her lab, citing concerns about future actions that could trigger similar disruptions.

Sean Eddy (Harvard): "This was a very vibrant lab... Seeing these labs empty — this is not the way it's supposed to be."

Jeremy Berg (former NIH official): "Now that level of trust is pretty much gone... There's a lot of pain and a lot of science that isn't gonna get done."

Elizabeth Ginexi (former NIH program officer): "I'm sadly watching the agency where I worked for so many years be dismantled."

Rachael Sirianni (UMass researcher): "The chances of that grant being funded in 2026 are basically zero... It's a loss of investment. It's a loss of momentum for the families that have children that are affected by these tumors."