The UK Government launched their National Cancer Plan in February 2026. Our Advocacy Manager, Ollie Richards, takes a closer look at the factors that will shape its implementation – and why research will determine whether its ambitions are realised.
Our Chief Executive, Professor Kristian Helin, recently contributed to a New Statesman Spotlight feature on the National Cancer Plan, examining the key tests it will face as it moves into delivery. Here, we take that analysis further, focusing on the growing pressure on the higher education sector to deliver the vital cancer research that the plan depends on.
Ten weeks on from publication of the National Cancer Plan, progress in cancer research has not slowed. In that time alone, more than 140 research papers involving ICR researchers have been published – more than two each day. Peer-reviewed publications are just one measure of progress, but they represent a step forward in how we understand, diagnose and treat cancer.
But behind this progress, the broader system that enables it is under strain.
In recent months, the higher education sector has faced a series of structural challenges – from delays in the sponsorship processes involved in international recruitment, to widespread uncertainty following UKRI funding announcements. These issues have real consequences: damaging scientists’ morale, weakening the UK’s ability to attract global talent, and ultimately undermining our position as a world-leading destination for science.
This is far from the optimum environment in which to deliver the ambitions of the National Cancer Plan. Because those ambitions are not abstract, they are measurable and ambitious targets that will depend on advances and improvements that only research is able to deliver.
Research is vital to delivering the plan’s targets
The plan sets out a clear set of ambitions: improving survival, diagnosing cancer earlier, and reducing the time it takes for patients to receive diagnosis and treatment. These are not simply operational goals, they are outcomes that depend on research.
Take survival. The plan aims for 75 per cent of people diagnosed with cancer to survive for at least five years – a 25 per cent increase on current levels. Achieving this is not a matter of just small marginal gains. It requires fundamentally better treatments, more precise targeting of therapies, and a deeper understanding of cancer biology. These advances originate in research.
Improving survival will also require diagnosing cancer at an earlier stage, when treatment is likely to be more effective. Early diagnosis itself presents an equally significant challenge. The ambition to diagnose 75 per cent of cancers at stage 1 or 2, up from around 58 per cent today, will not be achieved through public awareness of existing screening programmes alone. It will depend on developing new screening approaches, more sensitive diagnostic tools, and better ways of identifying those at highest risk – all areas driven by research.
At the ICR, this work is already underway. The BARCODE 1 study, led by Professor Ros Eeles, explored a simple saliva test to assess genetic risk of prostate cancer – showing that, for some men, it could outperform the current PSA blood test. This work feeds into the TRANSFORM trial, an ambitious effort co-funded by Prostate Cancer UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research to identify the most effective screening methods for prostate cancer. Trials like this – designed and led by university-based researchers – are critical to answering one of the most important questions in cancer care: how we detect cancer earlier, when it is most treatable. It is a particularly pertinent question in prostate cancer at the moment, as we await a final decision on the implementation of a screening programme following the recent public consultation.
Improving the speed of treatment is the third critical pillar as it impacts waiting time targets that have been consistently missed over recent years. The plan commits to meeting key targets on diagnosis and treatment times, alongside delivering 9.5 million additional diagnostic tests by 2029. But increasing volume alone will not be enough. Faster diagnosis and treatment require innovation and new technologies that make diagnosis quicker, pathways more efficient, and treatments less burdensome for both clinicians and patients. Again, to make improvements here, research is central. Dr Matthew Blackledge’s quickDWI project is developing a five-minute MRI scan, with the potential of transforming the experience of patients while freeing up valuable NHS capacity. Similarly, the PACE B trial, led by researchers at the ICR and The Royal Marsden, demonstrated that higher-dose radiotherapy can cut treatment time by up to 75 per cent for some prostate cancer patients. These are not incremental improvements – they are step changes that make ambitious system-wide targets achievable.
Discovery science: the foundation of progress
These advances are only possible because of sustained investment in early-stage research and discovery science.
Basic research – understanding how cancer develops, evolves and responds to treatment – is the foundation on which all progress is built. Yet it is often the least visible and most vulnerable part of the system, a concern increasingly voiced across the sector in recent months, including by the Chief Executive of the Francis Crick Institute, Professor Edith Heard.
The Boomers Project led by the ICR’s Professor Trevor Graham and Professor Kevin Monahan at St Mark’s Hospital – illustrates the importance of early-stage research, which might not benefit patients for some time. By analysing tens of thousands of tumour samples, the project seeks to understand why bowel cancer is rising in under-50s – a trend with profound implications for future cancer burden as we anticipate cases doubling between 2010 and 2030. Without this kind of fundamental insight, progress in prevention, diagnosis and treatment will stall.
If we are serious about improving survival, we must first understand the disease itself.
The unique nature of funding in the UK
The UK’s cancer research ecosystem is distinctive. Much of its strength comes from the partnerships between universities and medical research charities, usually funded by public donations. For example, following pilot funding from philanthropic donors to the ICR, the Boomers Project is now being funded by Cancer Research UK.
At the ICR, these partnerships are central to our work – from our Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre in Chelsea or long-standing collaborations with Cancer Research UK, and our Brain Tumour Research Centre of Excellence in Sutton. The latter is one of six centres of excellence, all hosted within UK universities, which reflect the vital role universities play in advancing research into rare cancers – a key research priority within the plan.
Across the UK, this model is replicated at scale. In 2024, 87 per cent of the £1.6bn invested by members of the Association of Medical Research Charities was spent in universities. Universities are therefore not just contributors to the National Cancer Plan – they are the primary delivery mechanism for the research it depends on.
The financial challenges facing our universities
And yet, that system is under significant strain.
Around 45 per cent of universities in England expect to run a deficit this year. At the heart of the challenge is a structural funding gap: charity grants typically cover only the direct costs of research, such as researcher salaries and consumables, leaving universities to absorb substantial indirect costs such as infrastructure, energy and administration. And the range of costs universities are expected to absorb is only growing. For example, our largest charitable funder recently announced that it will no longer be funding open access publishing for its funded researchers.
This funding gap is already changing behaviour. One in five universities have reduced research activity, with some scaling back charity-funded work altogether because of the financial burden. Given the central role charities play in funding cancer research, this trend presents a serious risk.
The Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) was designed and established by the Labour Government in 2006 to address exactly this issue – to help cover the ‘indirect’ costs of research that charity funding does not. But it has failed to keep pace with growing charity investment – which has more than doubled since the introduction of CRSF. As a result, the funding gap has widened across the sector.
At the ICR, despite receiving £8.7 million in CRSF funding, we still faced a shortfall of more than £17 million on our charity-funded research alone. That deficit must be met from our own resources – limiting our ability to invest in facilities, equipment and people.
Without intervention, this model is not sustainable and risks threatening the life-changing cancer research taking place in universities across the country.
We need action not just words
The Government’s ongoing review of research funding, including through Research England’s strategic institutional research funding (SIRF) review, presents an important opportunity to address these challenges. Targeted support – particularly for institutions heavily reliant on charity funding – will be essential. We have written about how we think the Government could best achieve this.
In the meantime, the conclusion is unavoidable: if we want to deliver the National Cancer Plan, we must address the structural and financial barriers facing university research.
As our Chief Executive wrote in the New Statesman:
“Health Secretary Wes Streeting has described cancer as the canary in the coalmine for the NHS. The same is true for our universities and research institutes. Their financial health is the litmus test for the UK’s scientific future.”
Cancer research does not happen in a vacuum – it depends on sustained investment, policy stability and access to the best talent. If we want research to deliver the National Cancer Plan’s ambitions on survival, early diagnosis and faster treatment, we must ensure the system that underpins it is strong enough to deliver what the plan requires.
Read more about our work to enable cancer research to thrive on behalf of scientists and patients.