Why “High-Risk” Cancer Research Is Worth the Risk

Every cancer breakthrough began with researchers questioning whether or not it would work. This is not a flaw in the scientific process; it's how discovery happens. Unfortunately, this is also when a technical idea is hardest to fund. Many traditional organizations require researchers to demonstrate promising preliminary evidence before they can secure significant financial support. But generating that evidence requires funding in the first place. The result is a critical gap where bold, potentially transformative ideas can stall before they ever have the opportunity to prove themselves. For early-stage researchers in particular, that first investment can determine whether an idea moves forward or never leaves the lab. Without someone willing to take that first risk, we may never know which of those ideas could have become the next breakthrough.

What Does “High-Risk” Actually Mean in Cancer Research?

The term “high-risk” can be misleading. High-risk does not mean reckless or scientifically unsound. It means pursuing a rigorous idea whose outcome isn't yet guaranteed, and being willing to ask a question science hasn't answered before. A recent Cedars-Sinai study tested a pretty unconventional idea: could giving high-dose glutamine, a nutrient cancer cells normally consume, actually make pancreatic cancer cells more vulnerable to chemotherapy? The research found encouraging results in both the lab and patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, with investigators reporting improved survival and tumor reduction. This is a perfect example of high-risk, high-reward research. While the premise sounded counterintuitive and it wasn't guaranteed to work, proper funding was granted anyway and led to promising clinical findings.

But What Happens When High-Risk Research Fails?

Of course, taking risks means accepting that not every idea will produce the results researchers hope for. But in science, an unexpected or negative result is not necessarily a failure. Learning that a particular approach does not work can help researchers eliminate ineffective paths, better understand how cancer behaves, refine their hypotheses, and point future research in a more promising direction. Uncertainty is an essential part of scientific discovery. If researchers only pursued questions whose answers were already relatively certain, some of the most innovative ideas might never be explored. The goal of funding high-risk research is not to guarantee that every project becomes a breakthrough. It is to give rigorous, promising ideas the opportunity to prove, or disprove, their potential. Ultimately, progress in cancer research depends not on eliminating risk, but on being willing to take the right ones.

The Danger of Funding Only What Already Looks Safe

We know results aren’t guaranteed with uncertain research, but the real risk is not trying at all. If organizations reward only ideas with extensive existing evidence, you chance creating a cycle in which proven research receives more funding while unconventional approaches struggle to gain their first foothold. In addition to the science itself, let’s not forget the researchers. Most are early in their careers, intelligent, and need financial backing to prove what traditional funding may ignore.

The First Grant Can Mean Everything

Early-stage funding isn’t just about testing an initial idea; it’s about gathering the preliminary data needed to publish findings, in hopes of then attracting larger sources of institutional or federal funding. At Tower, every $100,000 invested in research helps investigators secure approximately $1.5 million in follow-on funding over the next decade, on average. This proves why funding research at an early stage can be so powerful. The goal is not necessarily to fund an entire scientific journey from hypothesis to treatment. Sometimes the most important role a funder can play is giving a promising idea enough support to take its first meaningful step and giving a researcher the evidence needed to take the next one.

So, Who Decides What Risks are Worth Taking?

Supporting high-risk research does not mean funding every unconventional idea. Scientific rigor still matters. Researchers must be able to demonstrate a strong scientific rationale, a thoughtful approach, and the potential significance of what they are proposing. At Tower, research proposals are reviewed by a Scientific Advisory Board composed of leading physicians and scientists. That review process helps identify projects that may carry scientific uncertainty but also have the potential to meaningfully advance our understanding of cancer.

The question is not simply, “Will this work?” At this stage of discovery, no one can know that with certainty. The more useful question is: “Is this an important idea worth finding out?”

Why this Matters Now

Detection is improving. Survival rates are climbing. And yet cancer rates are rising, and the people receiving diagnoses are getting younger. The progress is real, but so is the gap between where medicine is and where it needs to be.

The gap closes when someone is willing to fund the research that’s too unconventional and too risky for traditional systems to touch.

Every funded researcher who publishes, secures follow-on funding, or contributes to an FDA approval makes the field more visible and attractive to the next generation of scientists. The world needs more cancer research and, more so, a pipeline of people who will define it.