
How Research Funding Really Works in Cancer Research with Dr. Cole Peters and Dr. Rob Swanda. Episode 62.
The Cracking Cancer PodcastShow Notes
In this episode of Cracking Cancer, science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, is joined by virologist and gene therapy researcher Dr. Cole Peters to pull back the curtain on the hidden mechanics of academic cancer funding in the United States. Dr. Peters walks listeners through the pipeline of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants—from training awards to multi-year R01 research grants. He exposes the immense administrative burden and fierce competitiveness required to keep basic research labs alive. The conversation explores the critical distinction between basic research (discovering fundamental biological processes) and translational research (moving lab findings to clinical trials), illustrating how iconic breakthroughs like PCR testing, Keytruda (PD-1 inhibitors), and CRISPR gene editing were all born out of basic research that initially had no direct clinical mandate. Dr. Peters also breaks down recent 2025–2026 administrative policy changes regarding grant funding structures and political oversight of peer review. He provides a stark, first-hand account of how grant freezes, "brain drain," and sudden funding interruptions disrupt mouse models, dismantle research teams, and set scientific momentum back by years.
Key Takeaways:
The Engine of American Innovation Basic vs. Translational Research The High Bar of Peer Review Policy Shifts in Grant Oversight The True Cost of Funding Delays
Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer
Chapters: 00:00 Welcome to Cracking Cancer01:41 Why Early Funding Matters02:11 How NIH Funding Works04:13 What Makes a Strong Grant11:01 Grant Success Rates and Competition15:33 Why Basic Research Matters18:34 Keytruda and PD-1 Origins23:52 How Grants Get Awarded27:35 Peer Review Changes and Risks33:38 Funding Cuts Hit Labs36:30 Brain Drain and Lost Momentum46:54 Basic Research Breakthroughs PCR50:30 State Funding and Local ROI52:55 Get Involved and Closing
To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org
Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License
X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos
More from The Cracking Cancer Podcast
In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon reunites with patient advocate Samantha Murrell and science communicator Dr. Rob Swanda to tackle some of the most persistent, widespread myths and misconceptions in oncology. The team explores the emotional and practical realities of navigating a cancer diagnosis, addressing online health claims, and clearing up common misunderstandings about treatments, genetics, and screening. Dr. Kyle and Samantha break down why pathology and diagnostic scans are not always straightforward, how "Stage IV" and "terminal" are often conflated, and why modern palliative chemotherapy looks vastly different from treatments 30 years ago. They also address dangerous online misinformation—such as the claim that biopsies or mammograms spread cancer, or that alternative therapies alone can cure metastatic disease. Finally, the panel emphasizes the critical role of open communication with your care team, particularly regarding potential interactions between targeted therapies and over-the-counter supplements.
In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by breast surgical oncologist Dr. Monique Gary (Dr. Mo) and Stage IV metastatic breast cancer advocate Lindsay Campbell. The panel unpacks the complex and often overwhelming world of breast cancer surgery, moving step-by-step from the initial consultation through the operating room experience to post-operative recovery. Lindsay shares her personal surgical path—navigating the emotional frustration of an 11-week scheduling delay due to tumor growth and operating room availability, which forced a pivot from a planned double mastectomy with DIEP flap reconstruction to an immediate lumpectomy. Dr. Mo demystifies surgical decision-making, explaining how tumor grade, genetic mutations (such as BRCA1/2), and hormone/HER2 status shape surgical choices. The panel also covers practical OR preparations—such as nerve blocks, pre-medication for nausea, surgical drain management, and handling "time toxicity"—offering actionable insights for patients preparing for their own surgical journeys.
In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by breast radiologist Dr. Deepa Sheth and Stage IV metastatic breast cancer advocate Lindsay Campbell. Lindsay shares her personal story of being diagnosed at age 38 after facing nearly a year of medical delays. Despite noticing visible skin dimpling and localized pain, she was repeatedly turned away because she was under the traditional screening age of 40 and lacked a felt mass due to deep chest-wall tumor placement. It was only after her father was diagnosed with breast cancer and identified as BRCA-positive that she was able to secure a diagnostic workup. Dr. Sheth and Lindsay break down the mechanics of screening versus diagnostic imaging, explaining how 2D/3D mammography, targeted ultrasound, and breast MRI function together. Dr. Sheth highlights the critical importance of free risk-assessment tools—such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model—which can identify high-risk individuals (>20% lifetime risk) who qualify for screening starting as early as age 30. The panel also tackles the federal mandate surrounding dense breast tissue, insurance coverage nuances, and why patients must trust their intuition when advocating for timely care.
In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon sits down in person with science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, to tackle one of the most persistent and anxiety-inducing topics in oncology: Does sugar feed cancer? Rob and Kyle break down the biochemistry behind how the body processes carbohydrates, deconstruct online misconceptions, and address the real-world harm caused when cancer patients starve themselves of vital nutrition out of fear. Rob explains the Warburg Effect—a phenomenon where cancer cells preferentially use glucose via fast, anaerobic glycolysis to generate rapid cellular energy—and clarifies why cell culture findings in a Petri dish do not translate to human metabolism. Dr. Kyle discusses human glucose homeostasis, highlighting how the liver and muscles maintain steady blood sugar through gluconeogenesis and glycogen breakdown regardless of dietary intake. The hosts issue a stark warning against extreme restrictions that lead to cancer cachexia (muscle and weight wasting) and explain why, for patients without uncontrolled diabetes, enjoying food and maintaining caloric intake is far more vital than cutting out sugars.
In this episode of Cracking Cancer, science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, is joined by glioblastoma researcher Dr. Julio Sanchez, a postdoctoral fellow at UCLA. Julio pulls back the curtain on early-stage cancer research, shedding light on the quiet, rigorous, and often high-failure world of preclinical science that takes place long before a new drug ever reaches a clinical trial. Julio details the transition from in vitro cell line work to complex in vivo mouse models, explaining why glioblastoma remains one of the most notoriously aggressive and difficult-to-treat brain cancers. He highlights his lab's recent publication in Cancer Research, which introduced next-generation, CRISPR-engineered mouse models that far better mirror human glioblastoma pathology and the tumor immune microenvironment compared to traditional cell lines developed in the 1970s. The pair also explore the rise of therapeutic mRNA vaccines and organoid platforms, and discuss why the scientific method is fundamentally a mindset built on resilience, critical thinking, and iterative problem-solving.