In 1971, Richard Nixon declared a war on cancer. A dramatic increase in spending on cancer research catalyzed enormous biological discovery in the years that followed. But scientists knew it was far too soon to talk about cancer cures. In 1971, we knew almost nothing about what drives cancer and how to stop it. That is no longer true. We now have a detailed understanding of what cancer is and how it interacts with the body. Cancer research has resulted not only in new treatments for the disease, but technological developments that have broadly impacted all aspects of medicine and agriculture, improving countless lives.
One area of research that has benefited from new technologies is whole-body physiology. About 10 years ago, CSHL initiated a new program to study how the brain interacts with other organs in the body and how these organs in turn influence the brain and behavior. This Brain-Body Physiology initiative includes unraveling the complex interac颅tions between cancer and both the central nervous and immune systems.
3D imaging from the Tuveson lab reveals the highly innervated microenvironment of pre-cancerous pancreatic lesions, seen here as red bubbles.
We have learned that neurons infiltrate tumors, and tumors release proteins that can influence brain activity and modulate the immune response. Furthermore, the immune system is in turn influ颅enced by the peripheral neurons. Investigators Assistant Professor Jeremy Borniger, Professor Hiro Furukawa, and Associate Professor Tobias Janowitz are exploring the consequences of these interac颅tions, which can impact patients鈥 moods, shift circadian rhythms, and influence the immune system鈥檚 ability to fight cancer. Professor David Tuveson鈥檚 lab has shown how signals from neurons can directly promote tumor development and growth, making cancer dependent on their contin颅ued input.
This is exactly the kind of knowledge we need to interrupt the processes that fuel cancer progression. As has become apparent, curing cancer requires therapies to go beyond targeting the cancer cells themselves. With a full-court press, we might see many lethal cancers become manageable diseases within the next 10 years. We have already witnessed this with metastatic melanoma. When targeted treatments and immunotherapies became avail颅able more than a decade ago, the number of annual deaths from this disease dropped significantly, with the five-year survival rate rising from around 5% to 35-50% and still climbing. Now, we must apply what we鈥檝e learned to take on other aggres颅sive diseases, like pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma. Recent developments suggest this is possible.
We have similar opportunities in other fields. In neuroscience, for example, Professor Stephen Shea鈥檚 work exploring how the brain integrates sensory signals to interpret social cues could inform the development of new autism interventions. And new knowledge about the processes that dampen neurons and damage brain circuits is bringing us closer to effective treatments for neurodegenerative diseases, like 础濒锄丑别颈尘别谤鈥檚. Here too, science is at an inflection point.
Ironically, while the opportunities for progress are unprecedented, the scientific community is in upheaval. The most obvious threat to U.S. science may be the drastic spending cuts that the President proposed in 2025, which would have decimated the nation鈥檚 science agencies and the laboratories they fund. Thankfully, Congress rejected those deep cuts. Still, researchers have experienced significant delays in receiving congressionally allocated funds, and far fewer grants are being awarded than in 2024, meaning federal dollars reach fewer laboratories. Uncertainty in funding is a disaster for scientists who want to make an impact.
But the challenges go beyond financial strain. More than ever, political priorities are superseding science in shaping the nation鈥檚 research agenda. This simultaneously restricts researchers鈥 scientific freedom and undermines public perception of science. If continued, it will become increasingly challenging to recover the leadership that the U.S. has had in all fields of science over the last 70 years.
For many decades, the U.S. has attracted people who, like me, came here because they want to work in an environment that fosters and values innova颅tive science. Breakthroughs happen because scien颅tists have been given both resources and freedom to explore their ideas. The impact of their discov颅eries is amplified because entrepreneurship has been prized, ensuring basic science advances are translated into tangible benefits for society.
But now, for young people choosing educational paths and planning careers, committing to a life in science seems a more precarious choice than it did just a few years ago. As the scientific atmosphere shifts, talented scientists are leaving the U.S. Many more will never come, deterred by hostile immi颅gration policies and the changing culture. This shift threatens not just to slow our momentum, but to leave lasting damage on the entire scientific enterprise.
Although this moment of opportunity is fraught, we need to embrace the power of science and continue to provide a vibrant and nurturing environment to advance the life sciences. In weathering the storm of lacking federal support, which I believe is tem颅porary, philanthropy has been and will continue to be necessary and most welcome. Indeed, one of the reasons CSHL is so highly recognized as a leading research and education institute is because of philanthropic support that promotes innovation and impact.
Science and even society in general are con颅stantly changing in light of major advances. In particular, the explosion of new and better machine learning methods and AI models is revolutionizing how science is done. These new tools are transforming the ways we investigate biology. At CSHL, we have embraced the best of them and are contributing to new approaches, especially in the intersection between neuroscience and com颅puter science.Additionally, this year, Assistant Professor Hannah Meyer and Associate Professor Saket Navlakha introduced an AI-based method for predicting T-cell targets, which will accelerate the devel颅opment of safe and effective immunotherapies. Other researchers using AI for genomics studies will have access to tools that are both more reliable and more interpretable thanks to models developed in Associate Professor Peter Koo鈥檚 lab.
Beyond the lab bench, we have embraced machine learning and AI in other ways, including the intro颅duction of the so-called Helix AI studio, through which academic scientists at CSHL can simulta颅neously pursue commercial applications of their research. Thus, leaders working in this space do not have to choose between cutting-edge research and commercial pursuits.
Another new addition is the BioAI graduate program within the CSHL School of Biological Sciences, which complements existing biology studies. With this new program, students who have a back颅ground and master鈥檚 degree in computer science, physics, or mathematics, and who are interested in a career applying their skills to the life sciences and medicine, can obtain a Ph.D. at Cold Spring Harbor. We aim to matriculate scientists who will be conversive in broad areas of research, an increas颅ingly necessary skill for a career in the life sciences and medicine.
On the topic of career opportunities, science in this country also suffers from an imbalance in supply and demand. Each year, the nation trains hundreds of thousands of graduate students and tens of thousands of postdocs, yet our economy cannot support avenues for all of these individuals to pursue high-impact science once they complete their training. Researchers competing for limited resources often stick to well trod approaches that get incre颅mental results but rarely lead to breakthroughs.
At CSHL, we have kept our graduate program small so we can focus on training scientists with the skills and ways of thinking they need to approach big problems creatively. Likewise, we hire promising early-career scientists who are well equipped to tackle those big problems, then support them so they can do their best work. Crucially, we trust them to follow their ideas wherever they lead.
That kind of freedom does not come from federal funding, particularly in the present environment. So, private funding is vital to sustain high-quality graduate education and research at CSHL. To remain an institution rooted in academic freedom, we will need generous support from donors.
Private philanthropy has enabled major achieve颅ments throughout the history of science, making it possible for researchers to explore bold new ideas. John D. Rockefeller established the Rockefeller Institute (today Rockefeller University) in 1901. Since then, 26 of its scientists have been awarded Nobel Prizes, recognizing seminal contributions to immunology, neuroscience, molecular genetics, and more. In 1902, Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institution for Science, which has been similarly impactful. Its Nobel laureates include pioneering geneticists and molecular biologists, several of whom worked at CSHL. Indeed, our own origins trace back to the Carnegie Institution. In 1904, Carnegie opened the Station for Experimental Evolution, which became CSHL after merging with the Long Island Biological Association鈥檚 Biological Laboratory in 1962.
In today鈥檚 gilded age, we need additional donors who, like Rockefeller and Carnegie, want to sup颅port unfettered science. By enabling us to seize the unique opportunities of this moment, their impact will be transformative. Think of all the amazing work at CSHL already made possible through the support of visionaries like the Robertson family, the Simons family, and many of our former and current Trustees. With today鈥檚 science and technology, more opportunities to improve lives and make the world a better place are well within reach. Let us seize them together.
鈥擝ruce Stillman, Ph.D., F.R.S.
“President’s message”