In This Section

Cancer Policy Monitor: March 10, 2026

AACR Leaders Express Appreciation to NIH Congressional Champions 

– Author 

Article 

21 Early Career Researchers Take the Hill for AACR Early-Career Hill Day 2026 

-Matt Gontarchick 

On March 18, 21 AACR Associate Members will gather in Washington for the 11th annual Early-career Hill Day (ECHD), which brings together early-stage investigators to advocate for increased funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This event follows a tumultuous 2025 that saw numerous operational disruptions that have disproportionately impacted early-career researchers. 

Hailing from 21 states, this year’s Early-Career Hill Day participants will meet with members and staff about their research and the importance of increased funding for the NIH and the NCI. This year, participants will ask Congress to continue to prioritize medical research by providing at least $51.3 billion for the NIH’s foundational work and $7.99 billion for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2027. Participants will also thank Congress for placing limits on the Administration’s use of multi-year funding mechanisms, which resulted in significant reduction of new research grants that can be supported in FY 2026. 

In conjunction with Hill Day, AACR will a lead National Day of Action to encourage early-career scientists and others in the cancer research space to communicate with their members of Congress via email or social media in support of increased NIH and NCI funding. Dozens of messages and pictures were shared on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social media platforms accompanied by the hashtags #AACRontheHill and #FundNIH. 

Register Now for the 2026 AACR-AACI Joint Hill Day 

Registration is now open for the AACR and the Association of American Cancer Institutes’ (AACI) Joint Hill Day on May 14. This Hill Day provides an important opportunity for cancer center directors, researchers, physician-scientists, cancer survivors, and other advocates to come to Washington, D.C., to urge legislators to support enhanced federal investment in biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.  

Learn more information about and register for the Hill Day. 

Senators Questions Bhattacharya on Multiyear Funding, Grant Terminations 

– Matt Gontarchick 

On February 3, 2026, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held a hearing on modernizing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with testimony from NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD. Chair Bill Cassidy (R-LA) framed the hearing as a step toward potential NIH reform legislation in 2026, although he voiced concern about extramural grant terminations last year. 

In his opening remarks, Dr. Bhattacharya outlined several priorities for reforming NIH, including centralizing peer review, funding replication studies to strengthen scientific integrity, eliminating embargo periods for federally funded research, reducing reliance on animal models, investing in early-career investigators, and encouraging high-risk, high-reward science. He also underscored the need to restore trust in public health. 

Members of both parties pressed Dr. Bhattacharya on the impact of NIH actions in 2025. Ranking Member Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) pointed out that despite full FY 2026 appropriations from Congress, the administration terminated $237 million in cancer research grants and disrupted ongoing clinical trials. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) cited approximately 74,000 patients enrolled in affected trials and sought assurances against additional terminations that Dr. Bhattacharya declined to provide. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire) referenced a decline in NCI grants in 2025 and questioned whether NIH had evaluated the impact on cancer patients, describing the director’s response as inadequate. 

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) recounted several administrative challenges that NIH faced in 2025, including workforce reductions, application backlogs, and delays in peer review. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) cautioned that grant terminations and broader instability risk pushing early-career scientists toward opportunities in Europe and China, with the potential to undermine. U.S. leadership in biomedical research. In response, Dr. Bhattacharya acknowledged these disruptions and emphasized that supporting early-career researchers is a national security priority. 

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) raised concerns about the cancellation of roughly $500 million in mRNA cancer vaccine research at BARDA. Dr. Bhattacharya explained that the decision fell outside NIH’s authority, although he reaffirmed that mRNA research continues at the agency. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) expressed concern that expanding multiyear grants could limit the overall number of funded studies and clinical trials. To this end, Dr. Bhattacharya said multiyear funding can be more scientifically appropriate for projects centered on new research, and that a portion of NIH grants have been historically awarded through a multiyear funding structure. 

NIH Support for Early-Stage Investigators Falls in Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 

– David Zahavi 

On February 10th, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published new data for fiscal years (FY) 2024 and 2025 on funding outcomes for early-stage investigators (ESIs) competing for R01-equivalent grants. Early-stage investigators are scientists who are within 10 years of their terminal degree or completion of clinical training and have not yet been awarded an R01-equivalent major NIH grant as the principal investigator. For ESIs, securing a major NIH grant is a make-or-break moment for their careers as these scientists can struggle in an extremely competitive academic environment where the number of qualified applicants far exceeds the amount of available funding dollars.  

The latest NIH data reveals a continued year over year decline in funding rates for ESIs and spotlights continuing challenges amid shifts in NIH funding policies. The NIH’s latest analysis shows that in FY 2024, 1,423 ESIs were supported on R01-equivalent awards, a modest decline from the approximately 1,587 supported in FY 2023. In FY 2025, the number dropped further to 1,144 awardees. However, the number of applicants has continued to rise, from 5,325 applications in FY 2023 to 5,446 in FY 2024 and 6,065 in FY 2025. This resulted in a stark decline in ESI funding rates (defined as the number of awardees as a percentage of applicants) from roughly 29.8% in FY 2023 to 26.1% in FY 2024 and 18.9% in FY 2025. The newly released data confirms a fall in ESI support that parallels the broader declines seen in overall NIH grant funding, particularly due to recent policy changes such as Multi-Year funding affecting the amount of available funds. 

In its communication accompanying the data, NIH emphasized that sustaining a robust biomedical research workforce is integral to its mission. It referenced ongoing NIH structural efforts to support ESIs by prioritizing ESI applications in funding decisions, separating review of ESI proposals from those of established investigators to prevent direct competition, peer review reforms aimed at enhancing fairness and transparency, integration of ESI needs into the NIH Unified Funding Strategy, and continued investment in mechanisms such as New Innovator and Katz awards designed to encourage innovative, early career research trajectories. 

NIH Director Dr. Bhattacharya has stressed the importance of “a sustained commitment to supporting early career researchers’ growth and continuity,” framing workforce development as essential to scientific progress. In a keynote address for Sustaining the Biomedical Workforce: Innovative Pathways for Retaining and Supporting Physician-Scientists, a workshop hosted by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), he reiterated his pursuit of “a culture shift that benefits early-stage investigators”. 

Amid these evolving funding dynamics, NIH issued a policy notice on January 30th announcing a temporary extension of ESI eligibility for certain investigators impacted by recent disruptions in federal appropriations. Such investigators whose ESI eligibility would have expired in September through November 2025 are now granted an automatic extension through March 31, 2026, without the need to submit individual requests.  

NIH’s analysis confirms widespread concerns that the tumult in federal science funding has harmed early-career researchers. For cancer research in particular, fluctuations in ESI funding rates carry tangible implications for the future of discovery science and may signal barriers to long-term research continuity. Early career investigators often pioneer high-impact research that fuels advances in cancer biology, therapeutics, prevention, and implementation science. Persistent funding challenges risk deterring promising scientists from academic careers or delaying breakthroughs that emerge at critical translational junctures. It remains to be seen whether NIH’s structural and policy initiatives to support ESIs translate into measurable improvements in success rates and retention over the coming fiscal years. 

NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya Named Acting CDC Director 

– David Zahavi 

Amid continued restructuring within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on February 18th, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya was tapped by the Trump administration to also serve as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This marks a rare consolidation of leadership across two of the nation’s premier health agencies and comes amid prolonged staff turnover at the CDC. 

The leadership transition follows the departure of former CDC Director Susan Monarez, who was originally nominated by the Trump administration to serve in the role and confirmed by the Senate. Monarez was removed from her post after a brief tenure last year due to alleged disagreements with HHS Secretary Kennedy over vaccine policy and guidance. Since her exit, the CDC has cycled through interim leaders, most recently Jim O’Neill, the Deputy Secretary of HHS, who has now stepped down after being named director of the National Science Foundation. And on February 23rd, the CDC Principal Deputy Director and agency’s No. 2 official, Ralph Abraham, also abruptly resigned. 

Bhattacharya, a physician-economist confirmed as NIH Director in March 2025, will now hold dual leadership roles of agencies separated geographically by more than 600 miles. His appointment at CDC expands his authority to oversee not only the nation’s biomedical research enterprise but also its disease surveillance and public health emergency infrastructure. 

Due to passage of a provision championed by Republicans in the Omnibus spending bill passed in 2023, the CDC Director role began requiring Senate confirmation in January of 2025. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, any currently Senate-confirmed official may temporarily serve in an additional role in an acting capacity, but that service is time-limited. The law permits use of the acting director title for 210 days following a vacancy, a period that began after Susan Monarez’s departure and expires March 25th. Therefore, Bhattacharya can now hold the CDC’s top role for only a month. After that date, Bhattacharya could continue overseeing routine, delegable functions such as day-to-day operations and guidance until a permanent director is nominated by the President. However, any statutory duties reserved specifically for the CDC director could face legal challenge if performed by Bhattacharya after March 25th. 

As shakeups continue at HHS and the CDC rotates through a cast of leaders, it’s unclear when a permanent director will be nominated. 

Regulatory Science and Science and Healthy Policy Track Sessions Announced at AACR Annual Meeting 2026 

There is still time to register for the AACR Annual Meeting 2026, which will take place at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, California on April 17-22 with an option for virtual attendance. A major highlight of the Annual Meeting is the Regulatory Science and Policy and Science and Health Policy Tracks, featuring discussions that will provide insight into the current state of play in federal science agencies and examine the future of cancer drug and device development. Learn more about some of these important sessions by following the links below – this is not a comprehensive list, as more sessions are under development.  

**All times are listed in Pacific Daylight Time (PDT): 

Saturday, April 18 

Sunday, April 19 

Monday, April 20   

Executive Order on Glyphosate Production Raises Cancer Concerns 

– David Zahavi 

On February 18th, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA) to prioritize domestic production of phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. The order directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure sufficient supplies of these materials and provides certain legal immunities to companies producing such herbicides. 

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in widely used herbicides and other weed killers, has been under intense scrutiny as a potential carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosates as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, which has been backed by other independent scientific analyses and animal studies. However, some regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have concluded glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic at typical exposure levels. Scientists continue to debate the study methodologies, data interpretation, and potential conflicts of interest that may influence these results. 

The potential role of glyphosate as a carcinogen has translated into extensive litigation in the United States. Tens of thousands of lawsuits have alleged that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. On February 17th, Bayer (which acquired Monsanto, the original producer of Roundup, in 2018) announced a proposed settlement of up to $7.25 billion to resolve many of the existing and future plaintiff claims alleging cancer causation. Bayer has long pursued strategies aimed at limiting liability for glyphosate claims, prompting concerns over potential ramifications of the executive order for settlements and the ability of affected individuals to seek compensation for cancer harms linked to glyphosate exposure. 

Though framed as a defense readiness measure and response to potential disruptions in agricultural outputs, the executive order has drawn sharp criticism from health advocates, environmental groups, and cancer prevention advocates. The order also led to intense backlash from leaders in the Make America Health Again movement. For policymakers, the executive order underscores the need for comprehensive health risk assessments that fully integrate independent scientific evidence and prioritize cancer prevention alongside economic considerations. 

FDA Updates Label to Fluorouracil to Recommend Testing for DPD Deficiency Prior to Treatment 

– Brad Davidson, PhD 

On February 5, 2026, FDA finalized updates long advocated for by cancer patient advocates that change the label of 5-fluorouracil (5FU), a common fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy drug, to recommend testing for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency prior to treatment with this drug. Those with DPD deficiency have a decreased capacity to metabolize fluoropyrimdine chemotherapies. Patients with complete and partial DPD deficiency, also known as poor and intermediate metabolizers, are therefore at greatly increased risks of severe and fatal treatment-related adverse events when treated with these therapeutics.  

Last year, AACR and FDA held a joint public workshop to explore the scientific basis and regulatory considerations for modifying FDA labeling to require testing. After much debate at the workshop and in a subsequent open comment period, both of which particularly centered on the lack of test standardization and uncertainty of how to treat those identified as intermediate metabolizers, FDA updated the label of the other major fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy, capecitabine, in October 2025 to explicitly recommend testing for DPD deficiency prior to initiating therapy. This new update to recommend testing prior to 5FU treatment brings FDA into alignment with many international drug regulatory bodies, including the European Medicines Agency which has recommended DPD testing prior to treatment with all fluoropyrimidines since 2020.  

Now, implementing this recommendation will become the major focus. A diagnostic test specifically testing for DPD deficiency was granted FDA Breakthrough Device designation, a first, and many lab-developed test panels have added DPD testing to their products in the time since the FDA-AACR workshop. However, insurance coverage, physician awareness, and overall usage still lag, as although testing has been incorporated into the recommendations of many US national oncology clinical guideline bodies, further updates to additional guidelines and changes to systems that did not account for this test remain to be seen. While uncertainties about how these recommendations will be implemented continue, the FDA actions and various guideline updates this year have been watershed moments for this field and for the patient advocates who have been advocating for a DPD testing requirement in the US since 2014.  

Register for the Virtual AACR Patient Advocate Forum: AI in Cancer Research, Care, and Survivorship 

Join us for the virtual AACR Patient Advocate Forum: Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Research, Care, and Survivorship: Current Status and What’s Next on Tuesday, March 24 from 3:30-5:00 p.m. ET, moderated by Anna Barker, Chief Strategy Officer at the Ellison Medical Institute and founder of the AACR Scientist↔Survivor Program® (SSP). 

The forum will explore how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used today in cancer research and clinical care and how these advances are expected to influence cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship in the years ahead. 

Moderator: 

Anna D. Barker, PhD, FAACR, Ellison Medical Institute, Los Angeles, CA 

Speakers:  

George W. Sledge, Jr., MD, Caris Life Sciences, Palo Alto, CA   

Carlo C. Maley, PhD, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Saranne Rothberg, Comedy Cures, Tenafly, NJ 

Register Today 

Patient Advocacy at the AACR Annual Meeting 2026 

The AACR Annual Meeting is the focal point of the cancer research community, where scientists, clinicians, and patient advocates gather to share the latest advances in cancer science and medicine. Patient advocates offer insights that reflect the lived experiences of those impacted by cancer and help bridge the gap between scientific discovery and real-world impact. 

Learn more about the initiatives planned for patient advocates at the AACR Annual Meeting 2026, including the AACR Scientist↔Survivor Program, led by Anna D. Barker, which builds enduring partnerships among leaders across the scientific, cancer survivor, and patient advocacy communities. 

Learn More 

Oncology Approval Recap 

Between January 30 and February 26, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued four approvals for oncology drug products. 

  • Pembrolizumab as well as pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph was approved in combination with paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab for adult patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 and who have received one or two prior systemic treatment regimens.  This application was granted priority review, and review was conducted under Project Orbis in collaboration with Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, Health Canada, and Swissmedic.  
  • Acalabrutinib was approved in tablet and capsule form in combination with venetoclax for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. This application was granted orphan drug designation.  
  • Encorafenib was granted traditional approval in combination with cetuximab and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for the treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation. This is an update to an accelerated approval received in 2024. This review utilized the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program to streamline and expedite data submission.  
  • Zongertinib was granted accelerated approval for adults with unresectable or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have HER2 tyrosine kinase domain activating mutations. This expands an August 2025 accelerated approval in the same condition, but that only included patients who had received prior systemic therapy. This approval was also part of the FDA Commissioner’s National Priority Review Voucher pilot program. This application was granted priority review, zongertinib received breakthrough therapy designation, and this review of this product utilized Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program.