I have been a pancreas cancer researcher for 17 years and this is the most important breakthrough we have see in my career. Sad to see it come at a time that science and research funding is being so significantly undercut, as I see many basic research scientists lost grants and close labs that will never open again. It is hard to appreciate the breakthroughs that will never happen or be delayed because of these decisions and this will reverberate for decades. Nice science reporting on a complex topic, btw and thanks for shining a light on what’s happening in the research community.
As always, Jonathan Cohn provides a clear and cogent picture about the impact of the ongoing destruction of our scientific infrastructure. The proposal to make independent scientific peer review only advisory to political appointees in federal government is only one of the assaults currently being considered. In the same initiative the OMB and Russell Vought have proposed additional changes that include: 1) "expand agencies' authority to terminate awards" meaning these same political appointees will have expanded discretion to terminate NIH and other federal grants at any time if they interpret them as not doing work consistent with "administration priorities;" 2) "costs for attending conferences are allowable only if participation in the conference is expressly approved by the agency and included in the terms and conditions of the award," i.e., grantees will be required to obtain permission to attend a conference to present their research results and federal funds from those grants cannot be used to attend conferences if such permission is not given and those funds do not align with administration priorities; 3) further broadening restrictions on any international collaboration in research with investigators from countries considered by the administration to be foreign adversaries, a country of "particular concern" or a country subject to sanctions or restrictions related to national security, defense or intelligence activities," i.e., almost any other country these days. If any of these new proposed regulations go into effect, this not only will further erode U.S.-based science but will seriously impact the ability of any scientist receiving any federal funding to support their research from attending and presenting results at a conference such as the one described in Jonathan's article, and will have a downstream effect of reducing or eliminating U.S. scientist participation in any scientific conferences here or abroad. Not to mention that the latter will have a substantial negative economic impact on locations that host such conferences.
Thanks Johnathan, as always, a fascinating read. For those of us who don't follow these types of stories, it's clear the dedication of so many of these researchers live in the shadows of death. I suspect the response by his peers was simply a reflection of one willing to continue to fight and believe there is hope...and then showing outcomes that reflect it.
Trump et al appear to be fixated on survival of the fittest. Those who have it all know they can buy the best of care. By worshiping the almighty dollar, they forget buying the best means the thousands like Wolpin must be allowed to continue their amazing work and the funding must be there.
Sadly, i suspect before trump is done, he will have created massive voids in the progress that has been made. Shout out to those researchers who never get the recognition they deserve.
Thank you for the excellent article, Jonathan. The news of this breakthrough on treatment of pancreatic cancer hits home for my husband and I: We lost his mother to it when she was only 45. She lived 2 years past diagnosis: Whipple surgery and chemotherapy made that possible, though knowing her first grandchild (our eldest) was on the way is, we believe, a huge reason she survived as long as she did, especially when the cancer came back in her stomach lining. She was able to enjoy her grandson for almost the whole first year of his life: And she *adored* him.
I'm turning 45 in August: It's only driven home just how god awful young that is to die of anything, let alone such a wretched disease.
I hope we can avoid this administration latest attempt to micromanage, bias and curtail every drop of government funding to its own political advantage. So much of what this administration has done, does and will do is criminal, but the callous disregard for scientific, medical research and advancement that can, does and will save lives... maybe it's too strong a statement, but it truly feels like negligent homicide to me.
The new OMB regulations are more destructive than 'just' politicizing the distribution of grant funding. It also allows the government to prevent researchers from publishing, attending conferences, joining professional societies, or collaborating internationally. It also allows already granted funds to be summarily cancelled. Applicants can be denied funding simply by having an association in their personal life with any group the regime does not like.
This would allow the regime to strangle the entire scientific enterprise by preventing communication of scientific findings. It would kill off professional societies, which often run reputable specialty journals. It would make it more difficult to train the next generation of scientists, whose study is funded by their advisor's grants.
In the worst case, the new granting rules could be used as a method for graft. A political appointee could tell someone to apply to an open solicitation. That person could use an LLM to "write" a proposal and budget. The political appointee then awards the grant money - often hundreds of thousands of dollars - to the person.
My mother died of lung cancer six weeks after diagnosis when she was only 58 years old. I was 32 and to say that event was life-changing for me is an understatement. I’ve followed the amazing progress against cancer that has been made since. The idea that we would voluntarily cut funding for cancer is just inconceivable. Thank you for the work you do, Jonathan, bringing us this information.
So I was going to reply that I think the terms have become interchangeable, at least conversationally, because I frequently hear about "oncology residents." But I'm wondering now if those are all radiation oncology residents (which, unlike medical oncology, truly has its own residency track). Gonna check this out. And ask Dr. Wolpin if I can. Thanks for the comment!
Why hasn’t anyone in the press asked the president why he’s cutting research to cancer? And why isn’t this a question that he/she asks every single fucking day? I’m asking for a friend, approximately 27 million of them.
My Mother passed at close to a 100 years of age. She was in a nursing home due to a stroke but the doctors found pancreatic cancer towards the end. They don't think she had suffered from pancreatic cancer for a long time, just in the last year. There was a small growth by the pancreatic duct. She and I had decided long ago that morphine was the right answer to death. We suffer enough pain in life; there is no reason to suffer pain in death when medicine can offer a peaceful death if we choose it.
I have elevated cancer-tumor markers, but I am in my 6th year of cirrhosis due to autoimmune PBC that I've had since the mid nineties. Cirrhosis and inflammation can elevate markers too. If anyone had told doctors that I would be alive in 2026, none of us would have believed it. They biopsy any new liver lesions--so far benign--but the cancer rate goes up significantly in cirrhotic livers. Cirrhosis loves cancer and cancer loves cirrhosis. I'm ineligible for transplant due to numerous autoimmune and rare diseases. And honestly, I would not want one. Let someone far healthier than I have a chance at life. I've been fighting these diseases (MS, Organizing Pneumonia, etc.) for a long time--time that was supposed to have been my life of publication and teaching after my Ph.D.--and am tired of fighting a losing struggle. No family, no money (I do accumulate debt! lol), and United Healthcare will probably bankrupt me. But I am thus far fortunate.
Thank you and The Bulwark for discussing political policy and health. And for giving me the opportunity to suffer a second Trump term with some self-respect, serious thought, and laughter. Bless you all. ♥️
I am so grateful for your journalism and commitment to covering the connection between health science, policy, and this administration. Thank you for your exceptional work, and for the Bulwark for creating the space. As a breast cancer survivor who finished treatment only a few years ago, I walked into my cancer center for chemo, radiation, infusions, and blood work, with deep appreciation. I thought about all of the patients, researchers, and funding (including taxpayer dollars) that made my, now normal, currently cancer free, life possible. Given my diagnosis, it would have looked a lot different 30 or even 20 years ago. I am so so grateful for our previous commitment to the science that made that possible. My only bittersweet hope is that other countries will replicate our old models, with deep respect for and investment in science, supporting the best and the brightest humans from all over the globe to come here, study, learn, and bring their brilliance into the fabric of our flawed health care system.
Harold Varmus is a scientific hero of mine. When I was a grad student in the early 1980s at LSU I spent 2 summers working on mouse mammary tumor virus with colleagues in the UC Davis Pathology Department. We were invited to present our work at a lab meeting run by Varmus and Keith Yamamoto at UCSF. Everyone knew that Varmus was likely to win a Nobel prize eventually, but he was disarmingly unpretentious and genuinely curious to hear about the basic research that we were doing in (friendly) competition with his lab group.
He has always been an eloquent advocate for basic research: “Just investing in clinical trials and things that are very disease-specific would be a huge mistake. Look at what pride people take now in advances made in diabetes and cancer research and infectious disease research. Almost all of it is based on recombinant DNA technology, genomics and protein chemistry. These are methods that grew out of basic science that was funded for years and years in a noncategorical way."
Thank you for sharing this important information. Congrats to all the researchers who contributed to this new drug. I hope Ovarian is being pursued with equal rigor-as it’s another silent killer. And, while breast cancer survival numbers have improved, a vaccine would be an ideal solution. Too many women (and men) have their bodies and lives turned upside down battling this horrible disease.
I always read your reporting, Jonathan Cohn! Thank you for keeping us informed about the important health and medicine concerns!
I have been a pancreas cancer researcher for 17 years and this is the most important breakthrough we have see in my career. Sad to see it come at a time that science and research funding is being so significantly undercut, as I see many basic research scientists lost grants and close labs that will never open again. It is hard to appreciate the breakthroughs that will never happen or be delayed because of these decisions and this will reverberate for decades. Nice science reporting on a complex topic, btw and thanks for shining a light on what’s happening in the research community.
As always, Jonathan Cohn provides a clear and cogent picture about the impact of the ongoing destruction of our scientific infrastructure. The proposal to make independent scientific peer review only advisory to political appointees in federal government is only one of the assaults currently being considered. In the same initiative the OMB and Russell Vought have proposed additional changes that include: 1) "expand agencies' authority to terminate awards" meaning these same political appointees will have expanded discretion to terminate NIH and other federal grants at any time if they interpret them as not doing work consistent with "administration priorities;" 2) "costs for attending conferences are allowable only if participation in the conference is expressly approved by the agency and included in the terms and conditions of the award," i.e., grantees will be required to obtain permission to attend a conference to present their research results and federal funds from those grants cannot be used to attend conferences if such permission is not given and those funds do not align with administration priorities; 3) further broadening restrictions on any international collaboration in research with investigators from countries considered by the administration to be foreign adversaries, a country of "particular concern" or a country subject to sanctions or restrictions related to national security, defense or intelligence activities," i.e., almost any other country these days. If any of these new proposed regulations go into effect, this not only will further erode U.S.-based science but will seriously impact the ability of any scientist receiving any federal funding to support their research from attending and presenting results at a conference such as the one described in Jonathan's article, and will have a downstream effect of reducing or eliminating U.S. scientist participation in any scientific conferences here or abroad. Not to mention that the latter will have a substantial negative economic impact on locations that host such conferences.
Cancer was Biden's moonshot, Trump's moonshot blew up on the ground and will take months to fix the launchpad.
If something can get screwed up, Trump will do it. The only way he'd consider pancreatic cancer research is if he had it.
Thanks Johnathan, as always, a fascinating read. For those of us who don't follow these types of stories, it's clear the dedication of so many of these researchers live in the shadows of death. I suspect the response by his peers was simply a reflection of one willing to continue to fight and believe there is hope...and then showing outcomes that reflect it.
Trump et al appear to be fixated on survival of the fittest. Those who have it all know they can buy the best of care. By worshiping the almighty dollar, they forget buying the best means the thousands like Wolpin must be allowed to continue their amazing work and the funding must be there.
Sadly, i suspect before trump is done, he will have created massive voids in the progress that has been made. Shout out to those researchers who never get the recognition they deserve.
Thank you for the excellent article, Jonathan. The news of this breakthrough on treatment of pancreatic cancer hits home for my husband and I: We lost his mother to it when she was only 45. She lived 2 years past diagnosis: Whipple surgery and chemotherapy made that possible, though knowing her first grandchild (our eldest) was on the way is, we believe, a huge reason she survived as long as she did, especially when the cancer came back in her stomach lining. She was able to enjoy her grandson for almost the whole first year of his life: And she *adored* him.
I'm turning 45 in August: It's only driven home just how god awful young that is to die of anything, let alone such a wretched disease.
I hope we can avoid this administration latest attempt to micromanage, bias and curtail every drop of government funding to its own political advantage. So much of what this administration has done, does and will do is criminal, but the callous disregard for scientific, medical research and advancement that can, does and will save lives... maybe it's too strong a statement, but it truly feels like negligent homicide to me.
The new OMB regulations are more destructive than 'just' politicizing the distribution of grant funding. It also allows the government to prevent researchers from publishing, attending conferences, joining professional societies, or collaborating internationally. It also allows already granted funds to be summarily cancelled. Applicants can be denied funding simply by having an association in their personal life with any group the regime does not like.
This would allow the regime to strangle the entire scientific enterprise by preventing communication of scientific findings. It would kill off professional societies, which often run reputable specialty journals. It would make it more difficult to train the next generation of scientists, whose study is funded by their advisor's grants.
In the worst case, the new granting rules could be used as a method for graft. A political appointee could tell someone to apply to an open solicitation. That person could use an LLM to "write" a proposal and budget. The political appointee then awards the grant money - often hundreds of thousands of dollars - to the person.
My mother died of lung cancer six weeks after diagnosis when she was only 58 years old. I was 32 and to say that event was life-changing for me is an understatement. I’ve followed the amazing progress against cancer that has been made since. The idea that we would voluntarily cut funding for cancer is just inconceivable. Thank you for the work you do, Jonathan, bringing us this information.
"fresh out of his oncology residency..."
That would be his oncology fellowship. A fellowship is subspecialty training after a residency. In this case a residency in internal medicine.
You are correct. They complete a 3-year internal medicine residency before doing their oncology fellowships.
So I was going to reply that I think the terms have become interchangeable, at least conversationally, because I frequently hear about "oncology residents." But I'm wondering now if those are all radiation oncology residents (which, unlike medical oncology, truly has its own residency track). Gonna check this out. And ask Dr. Wolpin if I can. Thanks for the comment!
Why hasn’t anyone in the press asked the president why he’s cutting research to cancer? And why isn’t this a question that he/she asks every single fucking day? I’m asking for a friend, approximately 27 million of them.
My Mother passed at close to a 100 years of age. She was in a nursing home due to a stroke but the doctors found pancreatic cancer towards the end. They don't think she had suffered from pancreatic cancer for a long time, just in the last year. There was a small growth by the pancreatic duct. She and I had decided long ago that morphine was the right answer to death. We suffer enough pain in life; there is no reason to suffer pain in death when medicine can offer a peaceful death if we choose it.
I have elevated cancer-tumor markers, but I am in my 6th year of cirrhosis due to autoimmune PBC that I've had since the mid nineties. Cirrhosis and inflammation can elevate markers too. If anyone had told doctors that I would be alive in 2026, none of us would have believed it. They biopsy any new liver lesions--so far benign--but the cancer rate goes up significantly in cirrhotic livers. Cirrhosis loves cancer and cancer loves cirrhosis. I'm ineligible for transplant due to numerous autoimmune and rare diseases. And honestly, I would not want one. Let someone far healthier than I have a chance at life. I've been fighting these diseases (MS, Organizing Pneumonia, etc.) for a long time--time that was supposed to have been my life of publication and teaching after my Ph.D.--and am tired of fighting a losing struggle. No family, no money (I do accumulate debt! lol), and United Healthcare will probably bankrupt me. But I am thus far fortunate.
Thank you and The Bulwark for discussing political policy and health. And for giving me the opportunity to suffer a second Trump term with some self-respect, serious thought, and laughter. Bless you all. ♥️
Bless you as well ♥️
I am so grateful for your journalism and commitment to covering the connection between health science, policy, and this administration. Thank you for your exceptional work, and for the Bulwark for creating the space. As a breast cancer survivor who finished treatment only a few years ago, I walked into my cancer center for chemo, radiation, infusions, and blood work, with deep appreciation. I thought about all of the patients, researchers, and funding (including taxpayer dollars) that made my, now normal, currently cancer free, life possible. Given my diagnosis, it would have looked a lot different 30 or even 20 years ago. I am so so grateful for our previous commitment to the science that made that possible. My only bittersweet hope is that other countries will replicate our old models, with deep respect for and investment in science, supporting the best and the brightest humans from all over the globe to come here, study, learn, and bring their brilliance into the fabric of our flawed health care system.
Thank *you* for reading and supporting us. And so glad to hear you are a cancer survivor.
This will be a key - and deadly - component of the Trump legacy. Bravo!
Harold Varmus is a scientific hero of mine. When I was a grad student in the early 1980s at LSU I spent 2 summers working on mouse mammary tumor virus with colleagues in the UC Davis Pathology Department. We were invited to present our work at a lab meeting run by Varmus and Keith Yamamoto at UCSF. Everyone knew that Varmus was likely to win a Nobel prize eventually, but he was disarmingly unpretentious and genuinely curious to hear about the basic research that we were doing in (friendly) competition with his lab group.
He has always been an eloquent advocate for basic research: “Just investing in clinical trials and things that are very disease-specific would be a huge mistake. Look at what pride people take now in advances made in diabetes and cancer research and infectious disease research. Almost all of it is based on recombinant DNA technology, genomics and protein chemistry. These are methods that grew out of basic science that was funded for years and years in a noncategorical way."
Thank you for sharing this important information. Congrats to all the researchers who contributed to this new drug. I hope Ovarian is being pursued with equal rigor-as it’s another silent killer. And, while breast cancer survival numbers have improved, a vaccine would be an ideal solution. Too many women (and men) have their bodies and lives turned upside down battling this horrible disease.