The Future of Cancer Research: Challenges for a New Generation of Scientists

Life begins at 43. At least that’s the case for many of today’s young scientists ready to enlist in the fight against cancer.            

First they face four years of undergraduate education. Then there’s an additional six years, on average, pursuing an advanced Ph.D. and another three to five years of postdoctoral fellowship—and in some cases, a medical residency. Once their training is complete, these scientists must compete for a junior faculty appointment at a research university. And then?            

Then they must wait even longer. For today’s scientists, there’s only a 10-percent chance that their first grants—essential to establishing labs and launching studies—will be funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary federal agency for supporting medical research. According to a 2008 report titled “A Broken Pipeline: Flat Funding of the NIH Puts a Generation of Science at Risk,” the average age at which researchers receive their first RO1 grant is now 43—up from 39 just a few years ago.            

“Today’s young scientists must wait longer for funding and fight for every dollar. We’re basically asking them to wait until their 30s or 40s before being able to make a living,” says Edward Partridge, M.D., director of the UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center. He adds that it’s a major problem—and one with a far-reaching impact. “We’re running the risk of losing these brilliant minds to other careers,” Dr. Partridge explains. “Meanwhile, cancer and other diseases are not going away.”  

Kulesza: Finding an Alternative            
New investigators must find a way to break a challenging cycle. They are told their grants are not funded because they do not have the necessary research data to support their proposals, yet they cannot conduct the research that would yield that information without the NIH funding necessary to establish a lab. “It’s similar to the situation that nearly every college graduate entering the workforce faces,” Dr. Partridge says. “No one will hire them because they don’t have any experience, but how can they get experience if no one will hire them?”

In addition, young researchers soon discover that they are not alone—and that presents another problem. Once they enter the scientific arena, they find themselves competing for funds with their fellow young investigators—and with senior scientists, who are facing the same funding issues but with the advantage of an established research record. Thus the competition for dollars is fierce, and many young investigators are now turning to alternative funding methods in order to continue their research.            

“I’ve given up on funding from the NIH’s National Cancer Institute,” says Piotr Kulesza, M.D., Ph.D., a UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center associate scientist. “It takes six months to a year to generate preliminary data, which I have to pay for. Then it’s six months to write a grant and another nine months to hear any feedback from the proposal. Usually, grants don’t get funded on the first round, so that’s another three to six months. That’s two and a half years before I can start working. I cannot fit my research endeavors into that funding mechanism.”

Instead, Dr. Kulesza relies on contracts with pharmaceutical companies to support his promising research. Since coming to the Cancer Center from Johns Hopkins University three years ago, he has focused on the development of targeted therapeutics for cancer patients; these medications could help doctors determine whether specific tumors will respond to certain therapies before treatment begins.            

“With the pharmaceutical industry, it takes a three-page proposal, and I get an answer in a month,” Dr. Kulesza says. And although obtaining funding from private industry is still a complex, often difficult process, he has achieved some encouraging successes.            

“People just don’t go into science,” he says. “The people who stay in research are the ones who already have a career built up or who are so passionate about it that they’re willing to face the monetary aspects and other issues. I am here because I want to pursue my dream.”  

Schneider: Winning Support from Within            
Associate scientist David Schneider, Ph.D., compares the race for research dollars to the operation of a small business. “Rather than getting investors, you have to get the federal government to smile upon you,” he says. “There’s a lot of uncertainty and competition and opportunity, and it’s not an easy route. You have to keep trying and be persistent.”            

Though he has had little success obtaining funding from outside sources, Dr. Schneider is not without options. In addition to the NIH and private industry, UAB itself is a key source of funds for the Cancer Center’s investigators. In fact, last year Dr. Schneider was the inaugural recipient of the Young Investigator Grant, a Cancer Center award developed by its Young Supporters Board.            

A native of Atlanta, Dr. Schneider joined UAB’s faculty in 2007 after completing postdoctoral studies at the University of California-Irvine. At age 30, he had landed “my first real job where I’m a contributing member of society,” he says.

Dr. Schneider’s lab studies the mechanisms by which cells regulate the expression of ribosomes, the cellular machines responsible for making proteins. “One requirement for cancer is the proliferation of cells, and more protein is required in order for that to happen,” he says, hinting at the potential benefits to patients from his discoveries. “We’re trying to determine how the synthesis of ribosomes is controlled and how changes in this regulation contribute to changes in cell proliferation. These processes could be a great target for controlling cancer cell growth. It’s interesting and really exciting.”  

Selander: Counting on the Community            
Eight years ago, Katri Selander, Ph.D., was living in Finland and “had never heard of Birmingham, Alabama, before.” Today she is an associate scientist at the Cancer Center, preparing to test a potentially revolutionary treatment for a rare type of cancer—and it’s all the result of private donations, she says.

For some young investigators, contributions from individuals and community organizations offer a major, vital source of research support. “I came to UAB with empty hands,” Dr. Selander says. “The local support has been really important. It’s never been easy to get funding, but now it’s especially difficult.”            

Funds raised by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation of Alabama, which donates all of its proceeds to the Cancer Center, were used to recruit Dr. Selander to UAB in 2000. But after establishing her lab, she encountered the usual young-investigator challenges, and it took her three years to win independent funding for her work to gauge the effects of bisphosphonates—drugs that fight bone fragility—on cancer treatment.            

In recent years, Dr. Selander’s focus has expanded from breast cancer to include mesothelioma, a form of cancer that attacks the protective tissues covering most of the body’s internal organs—although not exactly on purpose. Dr. Selander and her team discovered that the osteoporosis drug, zoledronic acid, inhibited the growth of mesothelioma cells in mice. “This was a completely accidental finding,” she says, “and also very significant because mesothelioma is a rare cancer for which there is really no treatment.”            

It’s a discovery that is both groundbreaking and promising, and it wouldn’t have happened without private contributions. Dr. Selander says that her mesothelioma research has been entirely funded by community support, through donations to the Cancer Center.            

Now Dr. Selander is writing a clinical protocol to test the osteoporosis drugs in human mesothelioma cells. “It’s very rare that a basic researcher like myself can get an idea taken to the clinical phase,” she says. “Of course, that’s always the ultimate goal, but it’s still exciting.”  

Though she is applying for external funding to support the clinical trial, Dr. Selander says she continues to rely on the community that helped bring her—and her research—to the point where it is today. “I thank all the people who donate money, because we couldn’t do anything without it,” she says. “We’d have to close our labs.”  

Lost Generation, Lost Cure?            
Drs. Kulesza, Schneider and Selander are just three examples of young investigators who have struggled for funding. However, they are among the more fortunate ones. Experts predict that it takes only five to 10 years to lose a generation of talented scientists to other, more lucrative careers. Unless medical research remains a viable career, these promising minds are in danger of going elsewhere.            

“Think about what we might lose if that happens,” Dr. Partridge says. “These are the people bringing in the next generation of scientific ideas that could make a tremendous impact in the fight against cancer and many other diseases.”

Dr. Partridge also cautions that as federal funding becomes even tighter, so do the limits of the research that actually is funded. He describes a current shift from funding bold, promising initiatives toward funding smaller, less risky projects. “This slows the rate at which medical advances make it to the patient,” he says.

The Cancer Center is addressing this issue by endeavoring to educate state legislators and other government officials about the importance of increased funding for cancer research. In addition, the center encourages community members to donate to the Cancer Center Fund for Excellence, which allows funds to be used for high-priority areas where money is most needed, including young investigators unable to obtain funding elsewhere.            

“Private donations and community support are more important now than ever before,” Dr. Partridge says. “We can’t afford to lose a cure for cancer simply because we don’t have the money to fund the research.”    

The NIH Impact by the Numbers            
“NIH grants are absolutely critical to the success of our research enterprise,” says Edward Partridge, M.D., UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center director. “An RO1 grant, which is one of the most prestigious and significant grants, is essential to researchers because it allows them to start laboratories, hire technicians and buy the necessary equipment for experiments. Unfortunately, our investigators are receiving these grants later and later in their careers.”            

In fact, the “Broken Pipeline” report notes that only 25 percent of RO1s go to junior investigators. The study also highlights other stark statistics:

• The overall success rate for NIH research-grant applications was 24 percent in 2007, down from 32 percent in 1999, which means that only one out of every four proposals is funded.
• Only 12 percent of applications are funded on the first submission, a 17-percent decrease from 1999. Most grant applications must now be submitted to the NIH for review two or three times before actually receiving funding.
• Only 18 percent of first-time applicants receive RO1 grants.            

What’s creating the crisis for young investigators? In the past five years, NIH funding has flat-lined—and not only that, but inflation has caused a 13-percent drop in purchasing power during that time. Researchers say the situation is unprecedented and an abrupt change from the previous five years, from 1998 to 2003, when Congress doubled the NIH budget; as a result, scientists were able to make huge strides in research, including several breakthroughs in the understanding and treatment of cancer, stroke, AIDS, and other diseases.

Tough economic times only increase the competition for limited research funds, adds Dr. Partridge. And while the shortage of dollars affects nearly all academic researchers, young investigators remain the group that is hit the hardest at a vulnerable moment in their careers.