The Directors: UPMC’s Byrd and Jefferson’s Chapman speak about avoiding catastrophism and using bridge funding to keep labs open

“There’s a tightening of the belt, and when the belt gets tightened, it has downstream effects.”

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

In recent months, several directors of cancer centers, appearing on The Directors, a segment of The Cancer Letter Podcast, mentioned that their institutions are increasingly providing small grants—typically in the range of $50,000—to scientists to enable them to keep their labs open.

To access this subscriber-only content please log in or subscribe.

If your institution has a site license, log in with IP-login or register for a sponsored account.*
*Not all site licenses are enrolled in sponsored accounts.

Login Subscribe
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher
Table of Contents

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

How’s this for a paradox: The better cancer centers become at keeping patients alive, the more expensive cancer care becomes. This brutal tradeoff hits harder in rural areas, where the cancer burden is higher and the investigator and clinical trial representation is lower.
Historically, the research initiatives of the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) have focused on finding a cure for HIV. Four decades of HIV research have reshaped our understanding of the immune system, and insights from HIV have been leveraged in adjacent fields, including cancer immunology. Innovation can be bi-directional and reciprocal. Seminal findings in cancer immunology have also furthered understanding of HIV biology. 
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher

Never miss an issue!

Get alerts for our award-winning coverage in your inbox.

Login