Curing cancer or curbing immigration: A question of national morality and priority

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

In December 1971, President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act and declared a “War on Cancer.” In the past 54 years, the U.S. has invested $180 billion nominally, or approximately $322 billion when adjusted for inflation, in cancer research. This investment has paid dividends with more than 100 anticancer drugs brought to market in half a century—virtually all traceable to National Cancer Institute funding. 

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 W. Thurman, DBA
Professor of management and analytics, Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, Columbia University
Table of Contents

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Growing up in inner-city Detroit, Otis Brawley had a thriving community made up of his parents, Jesuit priests, friends, and neighbors encouraging him that he could do anything he put his mind to. 
On Feb. 3, the House of Representatives passed the Senate Amendment to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, by a vote of 217 to 214. Later that day, President Donald Trump signed the bill into law, officially ending the brief partial government shutdown that began on Jan. 31. 
As NCI paylines drop to 4%, cancer centers are tapping into their institutional funds to provide “bridge funding,” typically in $50,000 to $100,000 increments, to enable investigators to keep their labs open until better times return—next year God willing.
Paul W. Thurman, DBA
Professor of management and analytics, Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, Columbia University

Never miss an issue!

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

Login