Federal funding is vital to cancer research, supporting groundbreaking studies at Winship—including those led by Adam Marcus, PhD, and his team—that advance cancer prevention, treatment and survival for patients in Georgia and beyond.
Adam Marcus, PhD
“Nearly every major breakthrough at Winship has federal funding in its DNA, whether in the early stages of a transformative discovery or later in a groundbreaking clinical trial,” says Adam Marcus, PhD, deputy director of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University and the Winship 5K Research Professor in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine. “Winship is grateful for the trust bestowed upon us by the American taxpayers. We take the responsibility seriously, and we seek to use these resources in the most effective and impactful manner possible.”
An example of federally supported research at Winship that led to one of its many major breakthroughs in cancer treatment and prevention was the development of abatacept. Abatacept is the first FDA-approved drug that permits people with cancer to receive bone marrow and stem cell transplants from donors who aren’t a perfect match without risking potentially deadly graft versus host disease (GvHD), a complication that can occur after a bone marrow or stem cell transplant when the donor's immune cells recognize the recipient's body as foreign and attack it.
“We are in a period of rapid acceleration, developing new treatments, harnessing AI for more precise screening and implementing entirely new cellular therapies for all Georgians,” says Marcus. “Without National Institutes of Health (NIH) or federal funding, we would not see these significant improvements in survival, screening and prevention compared to 20 years ago.”
Advancements in cancer prevention, screening and treatment supported by federal funding have led to a 34% decline in cancer mortality between 1991 and 2022, according to the Association of American Cancer Institutes.
Marcus points out that “cancer affects nearly all of us in the United States and beyond. Simply put, without federal funding for cancer research, the health of every American is at risk.”
Winship receives about $50 million each year from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). NCI is part of the NIH and serves as the federal government’s principal agency for cancer research and training. Those funds support the work of scientists and maintenance of the facilities required to make the kinds of advancements Winship is known for—including major advances in immunotherapy and other novel therapies.
An important discovery at Winship made possible by federal research support was fluciclovine (commercialized as Axumin), a novel radioactive tracer molecule that allows clinicians to visualize recurrent prostate cancer inside the body with PET imaging. Fluciclovine imaging helps physicians to guide treatments in a more precise manner, resulting in better outcomes for patients.
Federal research funding is also important for ensuring that patients across urban, suburban and rural communities alike have access to the latest advances in cancer prevention, detection and treatment. For example, the Georgia Blood Cancer Trials Network at Winship expands clinical trials of new hematology-oncology therapies to rural Georgians.
The nearly century-long collaboration between the federal government and research universities has been instrumental in driving other major scientific breakthroughs, from early discoveries in nuclear physics, such as the development of the cyclotron for medical imaging and research, to the creation of ARPANET in the 1960s, the foundation of the modern internet.
Direct costs vs. F&A costs
The total cost of federally sponsored research includes both direct expenditure and facilities and administrative (F&A, also known as indirect) costs. They are two of three essential parts necessary to ensure the success of the specific project. Direct costs include expenses related to laboratory supplies, labor and specialized equipment. F&A costs include research infrastructure, including for example, computing and data processing to support the research, utilities and building maintenance for research labs, and expenses to ensure a regulatory-compliant research environment. F&A reimbursement from the government specifically excludes fundraising, public relations and advertising, lobbying or entertainment costs.
Universities typically negotiate the rate of F&A cost reimbursement with federal agencies every 2-4 years, following a comprehensive audit of the institution’s research costs.
The percentage of federal funding allocated for F&A cost reimbursements has remained relatively stable over the past 20 years. For example, the NIH has consistently allocated approximately 27-28% of its total funding towards F&A reimbursements.
“Direct and F&A together, are the real costs of doing research – eliminating either would effectively diminish the ability to do quality research in the United States,” says a statement from The Council on Government Relations.
According to Emory University’s Office of the Senior Vice President for Research, Emory’s government-approved research F&A reimbursement rate does not cover the full cost of supporting the F&A costs associated with research at the university, including at Winship. Emory subsidized approximately $259 million of the research in fiscal year 2024—representing 25 cents that Emory subsidizes for every dollar in funding received from sponsors.
There may be some ways to make each research dollar go even further. To increase administrative efficiencies, the federal government could take some actions to help maximize F&A investments for cancer research. Examples include further investing in trainees and post-docs on research teams, easing collaborations between institutions, and reducing the burden that occurs from the rise of compliance-related requirements for researchers (without providing additional financial support).
Immediate impact of funding cuts
According to the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH), capping F&A cost reimbursements at 15% substantially underfunds essential research infrastructure, as many institutions currently operate with negotiated rates averaging around 50% of real costs. An abrupt reduction in F&A reimbursement shifts the financial burden over to universities, potentially leading to reduced research capabilities and deceleration of scientific progress.
Federal funding also supports graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who perform research. Cuts to federal funding will reduce the availability of training opportunities, which will reduce the pipeline of employees entering the biomedical labor force.
Overall, such cuts threaten the sustainability of critical biomedical research and undermine the United States’ leadership in medical innovation. America's research ecosystem is dependent on these three sources of funding: direct grants, indirect federal support and the university contribution, which is often made possible by endowed funds.
The role of pharmaceutical companies and their investment in R&D
While pharmaceutical companies also invest heavily in research and development (R&D), much of the foundational research leading to the development of new drugs is funded by the federal government and the research universities. A study in the Journal of Technology Transfer found that Emory is third in the world in number of new drugs discovered. Of the 364 drugs and vaccines approved by the FDA from 1973 to 2016 and discovered in whole or in part by Public Sector Research Institutions worldwide, 18 were discovered at Emory.
Federally supported studies lay the groundwork for scientific discoveries, often focusing on high-risk, early-stage research that private industry may not initially invest in. Once the discoveries show initial promise, pharmaceutical companies often step in to help refine, develop and commercialize treatments, bridging the gap between research and patient access. This partnership between public investment and private innovation is essential for advancing medical science and bringing new therapies to those who need them.
Federal research funding is important for Georgia’s economy and America’s future
Medical research, including cancer research, brings huge benefits to the state of Georgia. In 2024, the NIH invested $783 million in medical research in Georgia. These dollars supported 11,593 jobs and are estimated to have stimulated a total of $2.27 billion in economic activity within the state. For every $1 of federal research funding, Georgia gets $2.55 of economic activity.
The state’s top recipient of NIH funding with more than $488 million, Emory University has filed 6800 patent applications and established 142 startups. In cancer, Winship has significantly contributed to the treatments available today: two-thirds of cancer therapies approved by the FDA in the past five years were first tested in clinical trials at Winship.
A reduction in the NIH’s investment in medical research in Georgia would hurt the state’s economy—and seriously set back cancer research that saves and improves lives.
“It’s not just about the research itself—we risk losing the brilliant minds behind it. The young scientists, medical learners and postdoctoral fellows of today are the ones who will discover tomorrow’s cures,” says Marcus. “Without sustained support, we aren’t just delaying breakthroughs—we’re jeopardizing the future of innovation itself.”
Marcus points out that while our present discoveries benefit today’s patients, they also “define America’s role in the future of global innovation in health care.” To maintain the nation’s competitive edge in the cancer field, he says it’s important to preserve the jobs of those who contribute to medical research. “As a country,” he says, “we need to be leading the charge—and not playing catch-up.”