THE COST OF CHASING WHAT’S POPULAR IN SCIENCE

Every field has its trends, and science is no exception.

One year, it’s immunotherapy. Next, it’s AI in diagnostics. Big breakthroughs and high-impact journals are great. But when funding begins to chase popularity instead of substance, something gets lost. The cost of chasing what’s popular in science is high. It’s paid by researchers working on foundational problems who can’t get funded. It’s paid by patients waiting for treatments that don’t check the right boxes. And it’s paid by the public when real progress stalls because the work that matters most isn’t the work that headlines reward.

This is a problem of scientific research funding bias, and it’s one that the JKTG Foundation was built to push back against.

WHY POPULARITY SHOULDN’T DRIVE FUNDING

Let’s be clear: we need big, exciting science. But not every step forward starts with something flashy. In fact, many of the most impactful advances in cancer research started with questions that weren’t easy to explain in a grant proposal.

Uncovering how cancer cells move. Understanding what triggers metastasis. Mapping early-stage behavior at the cellular level. This kind of work doesn’t always make headlines. It’s complex, long-term, and often hard to quantify—especially in early phases.

But it matters. And it’s often underfunded, because it doesn't fit the mold of what gets attention. When the system rewards trend-driven science, important work gets ignored. And that’s not just an academic issue. That’s a structural problem with real-world consequences.

HOW THIS BIAS SHOWS UP

Scientific research funding bias often doesn’t look intentional. It’s built into the system.

• Institutions compete for visibility, not just validity

• Grant committees prioritize established topics with predictable outcomes

• Review panels favor conventional methods over new, untested approaches

• Scientists feel pressure to align their research with what’s fundable, not what’s most needed

The result? Research proposals get shaped more by what’s "hot" than by what’s possible. And the riskiest, most creative work gets pushed aside. That’s a broken system. And it’s why private philanthropy has a unique role to play.

WHAT WE’RE DOING DIFFERENTLY

At the JKTG Foundation, we fund research differently.

We don’t look for the most viral ideas. We look for the ones with the potential to move cancer science forward, even if they’re not getting attention elsewhere. That means:

• Using our flexibility to fund what’s meaningful, not just what’s trendy

• Supporting translational science that connects lab work to patient outcomes

• Backing projects that are too early or too cross-disciplinary for traditional grants

• Listening to researchers who are asking new questions, not just publishing in the top journals

We stay engaged. We build relationships. And we fund the questions that might be too narrow or too new for the typical process, because those questions are often the ones that end up changing everything.

A DIFFERENT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IMPACT

There’s nothing wrong with popular science if it’s driving the right outcomes. But popularity alone can’t be the compass.

Real impact isn’t always visible right away. Sometimes, it starts with slow work, quiet breakthroughs, and years of foundational effort. That’s the kind of science we’re willing to bet on. We’re not here to follow the crowd. We’re here to help researchers follow the right questions—even when the spotlight is somewhere else.

FINAL THOUGHT

Not all progress is popular. And not all popular ideas lead to progress. If we want real breakthroughs in cancer research, we need to be willing to fund what others overlook. That means taking risks, asking different questions, and building systems that prioritize impact over image.

The JKTG Foundation exists to do just that.