After losing NIH support, cancer researcher struggles to keep lab open : Shots
Joan Brugge, Ph.D., in her office at Harvard Medical School. “I can’t stop just because of the difficulties we are facing now,” Bruges says. “We all have to work hard to make a difference for cancer patients and their families. It affects everyone.”
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
hide caption
toggle caption
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
In a cancer research lab on the campus of Harvard Medical School, two dozen small jars with pink plastic lids sit on a metal counter. Inside these modest-looking jars lies the heart of Joan Brugge’s current multi-year research project.
Bruges lifts one of the jars and looks at it reverently. Each jar contains samples of breast tissue donated by patients after undergoing tissue biopsy or breast surgery – samples that could reveal a new way to prevent breast cancer.
Brugge and his research team analyzed the cellular structure of more than 100 samples.
Using high-powered microscopes and complex computer algorithms, they map each stage of breast cancer development: from the first sign of cellular mutation to the formation of tiny clumps, long before they are large enough to be considered tumors.
Their quest is to prevent breast cancer, a disease that affects about one in eight American women, as well as some men. Their ultimate goal is to relieve the pain, suffering and risk of death that accompany this disease. And their painstaking work, deployed over six years of the seven-year, $7 million federal grant, has yielded results.
At the end of 2024, Brugge and his colleagues identified specific cells in breast tissue that contain the genetic germs of breast tumors.
And they discovered that these “seed cells” are surprisingly common. In fact, they are present in normal, healthy tissue in every breast sample her lab examines, Brugge says, including samples from patients who never had breast cancer but had surgery for other reasons, such as breast reduction or benign biopsy.
Joan Brugge holds breast tissue samples that are part of a multi-year research project at Harvard Medical School and funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute.
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
hide caption
toggle caption
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
The Bruges lab’s next research challenge is clear: finding ways to detect, isolate and eliminate mutant cells before they have the chance to spread and form tumors.
“I’m excited about what we’re doing right now,” Brugge says. “I think we could make a difference, so I don’t want to stop.”
But this year, work at the Bruges laboratory has slowed down considerably. In April, its $7 million breast cancer research grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was frozen, along with virtually all federal money awarded to Harvard researchers.
The Trump administration said it was withholding the funds because of the university’s handling of anti-Semitism on campus.
Some staff members at the Bruges laboratory lost the federal grants that financed their work. Bruges told others funded by the NIH grant that it could not guarantee their salaries. In total, Bruges lost seven of its 18 laboratory employees.
In September, the NIH grant funding stream was restored. But in the meantime, the Trump administration said Bruges and other Harvard researchers were not allowed to apply for the next round of multi-year grants.
A federal judge lifted the ban, but Bruges missed the deadline to request renewal. Its current funding will therefore end in August.
Joan Brugge discusses an image from a genetic testing experiment with a colleague in her lab at Harvard Medical School.
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
hide caption
toggle caption
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
Bruges has worked to obtain private funding from foundations and philanthropists. She was then able to return to two positions for at least a year – but candidates are wary.
In the United States, the future of federal funding for cancer research is uncertain.
President Trump has proposed cutting the NIH budget by nearly 40% in 2026, the current fiscal year.
In a budget message, the White House said “the NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and promotion of dangerous ideologies that harm public health.”
But Congress has other plans: The House budget plan includes a $48 million increase, which would bring the NIH budget to $46.9 billion. The Senate plan would add $400 million, including another $150 million for cancer research.
But the differences between all the proposed budgets remain unresolved.
Joan Brugge uses a chart to explain the three stages of breast tumor progression.
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
hide caption
toggle caption
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
Meanwhile, advocates like Mark Fleury of the American Cancer Society are reminding lawmakers that federally funded research is one of the reasons the cancer death rate has declined 34 percent since the early 1990s and that part of the credit goes to advances in federally funded research.
“But we still have an incredible way to go before we can say we’ve changed the trajectory of cancer,” Fleury told NPR. “There are still some types of cancer that are quite deadly, and there are still populations of people for whom their experience of cancer is very different from that of other groups.”
Cuts in research funding will have a direct impact on treatment options for patients, Fleury said. For example, a 10 percent reduction in the NIH budget would ultimately result in two fewer new drugs or treatments per year, according to a Congressional Budget Office projection.
A recent study looked at drugs developed through NIH-funded research and approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2000. More than half of these drugs likely would not have been developed if the NIH was operating on a 40 percent smaller budget.
“We can’t say, ‘But for this grant, [specific] “It at least makes us want to pause and say, ‘What are we doing here?’ Are we shooting ourselves in the foot?’”
Amid all this uncertainty, Bruges is struggling to focus on its goal: finding new ways to prevent breast cancer.
A laboratory testing platform at the Brugge Lab at Harvard Medical School.
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
hide caption
toggle caption
Robin Lubbock/WBUR
Today, she spends about half her time looking for new funding sources, managing the anxieties of her remaining employees and keeping up with the latest news about Harvard, the Trump administration, the NIH and other federal agencies that have experienced grant freezes, staff layoffs and other disruptions.
She prefers to turn her attention to her ongoing investigations, which she believes could potentially save lives.
The Bruges lab breakdown highlights another problem: The United States is bringing the next generation of cancer researchers to their knees. Its employees included scientists, postdocs and graduate students. Of the seven who left the lab this year, one left the United States, one took a job with a health care management company, four returned to school and one person is still looking for work.
One of Bruges’ former collaborators is Y, a computational biologist. She helped design and manage a tool that analyzes millions of breast tissue cells from these samples stored in pink-lidded jars.
Y moved to Switzerland in October to begin research and a doctorate. program. (NPR agreed to identify her only by her initial because she plans to return to the United States for scientific conferences and is concerned that speaking out could affect future visa approvals.)
“I thought the United States would be a safe place for scientists to learn and grow,” said Y, who moved to Boston from abroad to attend Harvard’s bioinformatics master’s program. “I really hope that those who have the opportunity to study this in more depth can fill in these missing pieces in cancer research.”
Bruges no longer accepts foreign applicants, even if they are the best candidates, because it cannot afford the new $100,000 fee imposed by the Trump administration for visas for foreign researchers.
The Association of American Universities and the United States Chamber of Commerce have filed a lawsuit claiming the fees are erroneous and illegal. The Trump administration said the fees would discourage the use of foreign workers and improve opportunities for Americans.
Bruges doubts that work in his laboratory will ever return to normal.
“There will always be this existential threat to research,” Brugge says. “I will certainly be concerned because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future that might trigger a similar type of action.”
Bruges considered closing its laboratory. But it still employs staff members whose future scientific careers are linked to the completion of certain research. And when she looks at these jars with the pink lids, she still sees so much promise.
This story comes from NPR’s health reporting partnership with WBUR And KFF Health News.
