Cuts to Research Funding Put New Breast Cancer Drugs at Risk. The Story of Herceptin Shows How

The process of creating a new drug and getting it to the people who need it is not quick or straightforward. It relies on the work of hundreds of scientists, dozens of studies and clinical trials, and countless failures. This takes time. It can take 20 years or more of research before a medicine is approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It also costs a lot of money. Historically, a lot of that money has come from the federal government. This is especially true for what’s known as basic research, which sometimes leads to a new drug and sometimes doesn’t. Basic research answers questions about how and why cancer cells grow, where they spread, and how they survive. Although drug companies do basic research, more often they enter the picture later in the process. 

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) encompasses many agencies, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NIH and NCI are major funders of basic research — in fact, the NCI is the largest funder of cancer research in the world. It also conducts its own research at its 73 cancer centers. Both the NIH and NCI have had their funding drastically cut under this administration, with more cuts planned.

Herceptin (chemical name: trastuzumab) is a powerful example of how government funding led to a lifesaving cancer drug. Approved by the FDA in 1998, Herceptin changed the lives of people diagnosed with HER2-positive breast cancer. But breakthroughs like Herceptin are now at risk because of the Trump administration’s cuts to science. Here's how it works. 

Art by Anne Meadows