Considering that strategies in personalized medicine increasingly target individuals' unique health conditions, environments, and ancestries, further analysis is needed on how ELSI scholarship can better serve the increasingly global, interdisciplinary, and diverse PGM research community.

The International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) is an active network of cancer research funding organizations, sharing information about funded research projects in a common database. Data are publicly available to enable the cancer research community to find potential collaborators and avoid duplication. This study presents an aggregated analysis of projects funded by 120 partner organizations and institutes in 2006-2018, to highlight trends in cancer research funding. Overall, the partners’ funding for cancer research increased from $5.562 billion (bn) US dollars (USD) in 2006 to $8.511bn USD in 2018, an above-inflation increase in funding. Analysis by the main research focus of projects using Common Scientific Outline categories showed that Treatment was the largest investment category in 2018, followed by Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis; Cancer Biology; Etiology; Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes; and Prevention. Over the 13 years covered by this analysis, research funding into Treatment and Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis had increased in terms of absolute investment and as a proportion of the portfolio. Research funding in Cancer Biology and Etiology declined as a percentage of the portfolio, and funding for Prevention and Control, Survivorship and Outcomes remained static. In terms of cancer site–specific research, funding for breast cancer and colorectal cancer had increased in absolute terms but declined as a percentage of the portfolio. By contrast, investment for brain cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer increased both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the portfolio.

As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.