Mapping the Global Cancer Research Funding Landscape

Abstract

Background Global investment in research on noncommunicable diseases is on the rise. Cancer as primus inter pares draws particular interest from a wide spectrum of research funders. Next to the private, governmental, and academic sectors, philanthropy has carved out a sizeable area in the funding landscape over the last 25 years. Previous reports describing cancer research funding have looked at the volume of investment in cancer research but have paid little attention to building strategic intelligence on funders. Moreover, these efforts have focused primarily on well-resourced organizations, neglecting a large number of players with less-developed finances. Methods In this article, we combined gnostic data acquisition with agnostic bibliometrics to establish a comprehensive map of the global cancer research funding landscape. The analysis of funding acknowledgments from cancer research papers used in this exercise is a “bottom-up” method that provides a broader perspective on the variety of actors involved. It does not rely on a priori knowledge, nor does it require funders’ support for access to the data. Results Using this approach, we have identified a total of 4693 organizations from 107 countries engaged in funding cancer research today. Conclusions This is the largest mapping exercise performed to date and should serve as a knowledge base for future analyses and comparisons aimed at understanding the dynamics and priorities of global cancer research funding.

Trends in International Cancer Research Investment 2006-2018

“…Estimates of ICRP's coverage of the world governmental and nonprofit investment in cancer research over 2006-2018 have ranged from 60% to 65%. Nonpartner funding totals were estimated using two sources: published annual financial reports of major nonpartner organizations named in the International Agency for Research into Cancer's (IARC) list of world cancer research funders 14 and publication volume for partner and nonpartner organizations using Web of Science as a proxy for research investment 15 (however, analysis suggested that although high publication volume indicated higher research investment levels, the correlation was not sufficiently robust to infer nonpartner funding amounts directly).…”

Combined Longitudinal Clinical and Autopsy Phenomic Assessment in Lethal Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Recommendations for Advancing Precision Medicine

“…Can the results of this study help steer the PC research field to a more productive period? Between 1990 and 2019, the number of PC research articles published annually increased from 1012 to >7000 [21] and annual global cancer research funding increased more than fivefold [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] . Some findings from this period of growth have been translated to benefit patients [26] , [27] , but most of the published observations from 1990 to 2019 are poorly contextualized and largely unable to help individual patients or improve understanding of cancer biology.…”

Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics

“…Despite these limitations, using FAs for a papers-based test of the bottom-up approach usefully enables delineation of funding configurations (funding of outputs produced by individual researchers), funding amalgamations (funding of outputs produced by collaborating researchers) and co-funding networks (funding of outputs by all researchers active in a field). These would otherwise be difficult to map without using FAs [ 40 , 54 ]. Other methods could have challenges regarding resource intensity, intrusiveness and coverage.…”