In a quiet laboratory at Harvard Medical School, dozens of small jars with pink lids hold more than just breast tissue samples—they contain hope for breakthroughs in cancer prevention. Each jar, carefully preserved and studied, is part of Dr. Joan Brugge’s multiyear research into the earliest stages of breast cancer.
Brugge and her team have examined over 100 tissue samples, mapping the progression from the first cellular mutations to the formation of microscopic clusters—long before tumors develop. Their work, funded by a seven-year, $7 million federal grant, aims to identify and neutralize the “seed cells” that can trigger breast cancer, potentially preventing the disease in millions of patients.
“The cells we’ve found are present in every breast sample, even from patients who’ve never had cancer,” Brugge said. “Our next step is figuring out how to detect and eliminate these cells before tumors form. I think we could make a real difference, so I don’t want to stop.”
But over the past year, Brugge’s research has been thrown into disarray. In April, her National Cancer Institute grant was frozen—along with nearly all federal funding to Harvard—amid a dispute over the university’s handling of antisemitism on campus. Seven of her 18 lab employees were forced to leave when salaries and fellowships disappeared, and hiring new staff became nearly impossible. Although the funding was later restored, Brugge missed the deadline to apply for renewal, placing the lab’s future at risk.
In response, Brugge sought private funding from foundations and philanthropists, allowing her to reinstate two positions temporarily. However, recruiting staff remains challenging, and she has stopped accepting applicants from abroad due to a new $100,000 visa fee for foreign researchers.
“The U.S. is losing the next generation of cancer scientists,” said Brugge, noting that former lab members have moved abroad, switched careers, or returned to school. “There’s now an existential threat to our research, and we don’t know when it might happen again.”
The funding uncertainty comes amid broader turbulence in U.S. science policy. President Trump has proposed cutting the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget by nearly 40%, though Congress has suggested increases instead, leaving final allocations unresolved. Advocates warn that reductions could slow the development of new treatments, citing studies that show many FDA-approved drugs since 2000 were rooted in NIH-funded research.
Mark Fleury of the American Cancer Society emphasized the stakes: “Federal research funding has helped reduce cancer deaths by 34% since the 1990s. Cuts to this research could directly impact future treatment options and patient outcomes.”
Despite these challenges, Brugge remains committed to her work. “I spend half my time seeking funding and managing staff concerns, but when I look at those pink-lidded jars, I see promise,” she said. “The science is too important to abandon.”
Brugge’s lab highlights both the potential and fragility of U.S. cancer research. As federal funding fluctuates, the progress of vital scientific discoveries—and the careers of the next generation of researchers—hang in the balance.
