US POLICY GRID INVESTIGATION · PART 3
The Cancer Money Trail: What Does Each Country Contribute?
If cancer is a global disease, the distribution of cancer research money is one of the most important parts of the story.
In Part 2, we established that there is no single global cancer-research budget. Governments, charities, foundations, universities, international organisations and companies all contribute in different ways.
Now we can ask a more specific question: Which countries are actually providing the money?
The map begins with a remarkable concentration
A major global analysis examined 107,955 public and philanthropic cancer-research awards made between 2016 and 2023, with a combined value of $51.4 billion. The study also linked those awards to more than 431,000 research publications.
The result is a highly concentrated funding map.
The United States
The United States accounted for $29.3 billion, or 57.2%, of the funding identified in the study. The U.S. National Institutes of Health alone accounted for $21.9 billion, or 42.6% of the global total identified in the dataset.
The $29.3 billion represents the U.S. contribution identified in this particular public-and-philanthropic dataset. It is not the same thing as every dollar spent on cancer research in America.
The National Cancer Institute is one of the country's major public cancer-research funders. In FY2025, NCI had approximately $7.22 billion in actual obligations from appropriated funds. Its extramural programme accounted for approximately $5.46 billion.
The United Kingdom
The United Kingdom contributed approximately $5.7 billion, or 11.1%, of the global public and philanthropic funding total identified. In 2024/25, Cancer Research UK reported £403 million spent on new and ongoing research.
The UK's contribution comes through government research funding, universities, medical charities and foundations. Charitable funding can therefore be a major part of a national research ecosystem.
Australia
Australia contributed approximately $1.5 billion, or 2.9%, of the funding identified. Commonwealth countries collectively accounted for $8.7 billion, or 17.0%.
The Commonwealth figure is not an additional $8.7 billion on top of individual countries. It is their combined contribution.
Canada
Canada contributed approximately $1.3 billion, or 2.6%, of the global total identified.
The important question is what happens to that funding: which institutions receive it, what cancer types are studied, and whether research capacity is built domestically or internationally.
Japan and China
The global analysis reported Japan at approximately 3.6% of the public and philanthropic funding total, while China accounted for approximately 2.6%.
These figures illustrate a limitation of country comparisons. The dataset measures identified public and philanthropic cancer-research awards, not the entire research economy of each country. It should not be treated as a league table of scientific capability.
Europe is bigger than any single country suggests
The European Union and its member states together accounted for approximately 16.8% of global public and philanthropic cancer-research funding in the analysis.
European funding is distributed across national governments, research councils, universities, charities and EU-level programmes, making simple country comparisons difficult.
Then comes the most striking part of the map
The global study found that high-income countries provided approximately $50.0 billion — 97.0% of the funding identified.
The study indicates that low-income countries received less than 0.1% of the identified funding, approximately $8.4 million, during the eight-year period.
This does not mean people in those countries received no cancer research. International collaborations can involve researchers and institutions across multiple countries. But the geographical concentration of the funding is still clear.
Funding and cancer burden are not the same map
Cancer is a global disease, but research capacity is not distributed equally around the world.
WHO's analysis found that cancer clinical trials remain concentrated in high-income countries. 63 countries had no registered cancer trials in the data examined. Some cancers causing substantial deaths in low- and middle-income countries, including liver, cervical and stomach cancers, were among the least studied.
WHO also found research disproportionately concentrated on novel drugs, while surgery, radiotherapy, diagnostics and palliative care were comparatively underrepresented.
That does not establish that wealthy countries are deliberately directing research away from poorer countries. There are many possible reasons, including research infrastructure, scientific capacity, clinical-trial networks, regulation, universities, pharmaceutical investment and the ability to conduct large studies.
The money does not necessarily follow the disease
A country can contribute large amounts of money to cancer research without that money necessarily being spent on cancers causing the greatest burden in lower-income countries.
Similarly, a country with a large cancer burden may have limited research infrastructure and therefore receive relatively little research funding.
Less funding → less infrastructure → fewer researchers → fewer trials → less locally generated evidence → continued dependence on research conducted elsewhere.
This is a hypothesis about how research systems can reinforce themselves. It needs to be tested rather than assumed.
A funding map, not a league table
| Area | Identified public/philanthropic funding, 2016–2023 |
|---|---|
| United States | $29.3bn |
| United Kingdom | $5.7bn |
| Australia | $1.5bn |
| Canada | $1.3bn |
| Commonwealth countries combined | $8.7bn |
| High-income countries combined | $50.0bn |
| Global dataset | $51.4bn |
These figures come from the same global dataset and are comparable within its methodology. They should not be interpreted as a ranking of scientific capability, healthcare quality or cancer outcomes.
The first major geographical finding
The money trail now has a clearer shape. A small number of wealthy countries and regions supplied the overwhelming majority of the funding identified. The United States alone accounted for more than half, while Europe and Commonwealth countries represented substantial additional blocks.
At the same time, WHO's research landscape shows that cancer clinical research itself is geographically concentrated.
But we still haven't answered the most important question.
Who actually receives the money?
A government may provide the funding. A charity may award the grant. A university may receive it. A research institute may administer it. A scientist may lead the project. A company may eventually license the resulting technology. And a patient may eventually receive the treatment.
That is the next part of the trail.
Next Sunday — Part 4: Who Receives the Cancer Research Money?
← Read Part 2: Where Does the Cancer Research Money Come From?
US Policy Grid separates public, philanthropic and commercial funding wherever the underlying data allow it. Country figures here refer primarily to the 2016–2023 public and philanthropic funding dataset and should not be interpreted as total national cancer R&D spending.
Where figures come from different datasets or periods, they are kept separate rather than combined.
Both sides. One record.
Sources
- The Lancet Oncology — Global cancer research funding analysis
- National Cancer Institute — FY2025 Budget Fact Book
- National Cancer Institute — FY2025 Extramural Funding
- World Health Organization — Cancer R&D landscape
- Cancer Research UK — 2024/25 annual report
Research note: The $51.4 billion figure refers specifically to identified public and philanthropic awards in the 2016–2023 dataset. It is not a complete measure of global cancer research spending.
Part 2 · Part 3 · Part 4 coming next Sunday