The Cancer Letter

The leading source for information on the issues that shape oncology since 1973

CBER’s All-Day Voyage into Slippery Science Ends in 18-6 Vote against Bladder Drug

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print
BYLINE
IN THIS ISSUE
BYLINEDOWNLOAD PDFTABLE OF CONTENTS

One might surmise that by the time FDA asks an advisory committee to vet an application, the questions would deal primarily with clinical utility.

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
Byline
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher
Table of Contents

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

California state-funded institute scraps selection process that put cancer projects at a disadvantage
Cancer researchers are resubmitting applications to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a state agency tasked with awarding billions of dollars of scientific funding for stem cell and gene therapy, has rescinded a controversial policy that was disrupting the flow of funding to cancer research.
By Sara Willa Ernst
Cancer Policy

President’s budget request would cap indirect costs and fully fund all NIH research projects upfront

NCI has emerged relatively unscathed in the president’s FY 2027 budget request that would slash $15.8 billion from HHS funding, cut NIH overall by about 10%, eliminate three NIH institutes and centers, and move the Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and its circa $1 billion budget out of NIH.
By Claire Marie Porter and Jacquelyn Cobb
Byline
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher
Table of Contents

Never miss an issue!

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

Login

Site license subscribers:
Log in with your IP | Register a sponsored account