The truth about cancer funding (and why it’s not adding up)

Cancer research funding should be simple: the more common or deadly a cancer is, the more money goes into finding better treatments, right? Well… not exactly.

In reality, some cancers receive way more funding than others, even when they affect fewer people or have a much higher survival rate. And when you start digging into the numbers, things get even more interesting (or infuriating, depending on how you look at it).

This report is here to call it out. We’re tackling two big issues:

1. Bladder and bowel cancers are massively underfunded, despite being some of the most common and deadly cancers out there.

2. Male cancers get more funding per case than female cancers, which raises some pretty big questions about how money is allocated.

We’re breaking it down with real data, no fluff. Because if we want to improve survival rates and actually give people the care they need, we need to start asking why some cancers are prioritised over others and who’s being left behind.

The hard numbers

Alright, let’s get straight to it. We’ve crunched the numbers, trawled through the UK charity register, and pulled together the real stats on cancer funding, because when you actually look at where the money goes, the gaps are impossible to ignore.

We didn’t just rely on headline figures, we went deep. We checked how many charities are dedicated to each type of cancer and how that stacks up against prevalence and survival rates.

Some cancers get millions in charitable funding with dozens of charities championing their cause. Others? They’re barely getting noticed, even though they’re deadlier, more common, or more preventable.

Here’s the raw data that lays it all out. Take a look and then ask yourself: why are some cancers getting the short end of the stick?

Bladder and bowel: the charity funding gap

Bladder cancer affects over 10,000 people a year. Bowel cancer? More than 44,000. But when it comes to funding, they’re barely getting a look in.

If you were to guess where most cancer research money goes, you’d probably assume it’s based on how common or deadly a cancer is. But when you actually lay out the numbers, the funding gaps are shocking.

Let’s start with bladder cancer, which sees 10,471 cases a year but gets just £94 per case in funding.

Compare that to:

• Breast cancer – 56,822 cases and £1,441 per case.

• Prostate cancer – 55,093 cases and £1,288 per case.

• Brain cancer – 12,746 cases and £2,579 per case.

• Testicular cancer – 2,376 cases and £5,354 per case.

Bladder cancer affects more people than brain and testicular cancer combined, yet it receives just a fraction of the funding.

Bowel cancer is the UK’s fourth most common cancer, yet for the amount of funding it receives, it’s undervalued.

Bowel cancer is a major killer, with 44,063 cases per year and 16,808 deaths. It’s the fourth most common cancer in the UK, and yet funding is laughable at £288 per case when you compare it to the two most common cancers in the UK, Breast (£1,441) and Prostate (£1,288).

This is a cancer where early detection makes a huge difference, yet low investment in research and screening means many cases aren’t caught until it’s too late.

And while it’s true that lung cancer gets even less per case (£178), there’s at least some logic there, it’s highly preventable (72% of cases are linked to smoking). Bowel cancer doesn’t have that excuse.

So, what’s the deal? Why aren’t these cancers getting the funding they deserve?

The cancers we don’t talk about enough

Some cancers dominate the conversation. They have high-profile fundraising events, well-known awareness months, and celebrity advocates pushing them into the spotlight. But others struggle to get the same level of attention, despite affecting tens of thousands of people every year.

These cancers can be difficult to talk about. They’re often associated with ageing or bodily functions we’d rather not talk about, which means they don’t always get the awareness they deserve. But staying quiet about them has real consequences, because when fewer people are talking about a disease, less money gets invested in research, early detection, and treatment breakthroughs.

We can see this in the number of charities dedicated to funding research:

• Bladder cancer – just 6 charities, raising £987,275 in total.

• Bowel cancer – 25 charities, raising £12,710,971, but still significantly less than many other cancers.

Compare that to breast cancer, which has 123 charities and £81 million in funding, or prostate cancer, which has 65 charities and £70 million in funding.

The impact of being overlooked

When a cancer isn’t on the public radar, the effects are serious:

• Less research funding means fewer treatment advancements.

• Lower awareness leads to later diagnoses, which can be deadly.

• Patients miss out on the support, education, and breakthroughs that better-funded cancers benefit from.

If we actually want to improve survival rates, we need to change how we think about these cancers. Because no one should be left behind just because their disease isn’t in the spotlight.

And right now, the numbers show that’s exactly what’s happening.

Why do male cancers get more funding per case than female cancers?

Fact: Male-specific cancers receive, on average, more funding per case than female-specific cancers, despite female cancers having lower survival rates.

If you thought cancer funding was purely based on need, prevalence, or mortality rates, the numbers tell a different story.

When we compare funding for cancers that only affect men (like prostate and testicular cancer) with those that only affect women (like ovarian, cervical, uterine, vulval, and vaginal cancers), we see a clear gap.

• Male-specific cancers: Average survival rate of 79% and £1,450 per case in funding.

• Female-specific cancers: Average survival rate of 58% and £1,203 per case in funding.

Put simply, men’s cancers receive more money per case, despite women’s cancers being deadlier.

The data that doesn’t add up

Let’s break it down:

• Testicular cancer has a 91% survival rate but gets a massive £5,354 per case.

• Prostate cancer, with a 78% survival rate, receives £1,288 per case.

• Meanwhile, ovarian cancer, where survival is just 35%, only gets £1,132 per case.

• Cervical cancer, which is 99.8% preventable with proper screening, gets just £930 per case.

• Uterine cancer gets the lowest per-case funding at just £63 per case - despite almost 10,000 cases per year.

That’s a huge imbalance, and it raises some tough questions.

Why is this happening?

We’re not here to pit one cancer against another. Every single cancer deserves proper funding. But when we see these gaps, we have to ask: why are women’s cancers consistently getting less funding per case, despite worse survival rates?

Here are two possible reasons…

Awareness & advocacy

Prostate and testicular cancer have had huge awareness pushes over the years, with campaigns like Movember. Breast cancer does get attention, but other gynaecological cancers (like ovarian and uterine) don’t get the same funding momentum.

Screening & prevention perception

There’s a widespread (and false) idea that female cancers are already ‘handled’ by screening programmes, meaning they don’t need as much funding. But cervical cancer screening isn’t perfect, ovarian cancer is notoriously hard to detect early, and uterine cancer is dramatically underfunded.

The numbers show female cancers are still catching up in terms of investment and in the meantime, patients are paying the price.

What needs to change?

It’s not just about throwing more money at the problem, it’s about putting it where it actually makes a difference.

We’re not saying that other cancers should get less funding. We’re saying that the way funding is allocated needs to change. Right now, it’s not matching up with the reality of who’s being affected, how deadly these cancers are, and what could actually be prevented or treated with the right investment.

So, what needs to happen?

1. Funding should be based on impact, not just awareness

Right now, cancers that have big awareness campaigns tend to get the most funding. That’s why breast, prostate, and testicular cancers receive millions, while others, like bladder, bowel, and gynaecological cancers, are left in the background.

A better approach? Fund cancers based on:

• Prevalence – How many people are actually affected each year?

• Survival rates – Are treatments working, or do we need breakthroughs?

• Preventability – Can we stop this cancer before it starts?

• Quality of life impact – Some cancers aren’t always fatal but can be life-altering, requiring long-term treatment and support.

Bladder and bowel cancer research, for example, would benefit hugely from better funding, because early detection can make an enormous difference, yet people don’t always have the information or resources they need.

2. We need to talk more about ‘taboo’ cancers

A big part of why some cancers don’t get the funding they need? People just don’t talk about them enough.

Let’s be real: bladder, bowel, and gynaecological cancers can feel ‘awkward’ to discuss.

• Bladder cancer – Bladder issues can often be dismissed as an ‘old person’s problem., but they can happen to anyone.

• Bowel cancer – Symptoms involve digestion and toilet habits, which people don’t always feel comfortable discussing.

• Gynaecological cancers – Vaginal, vulval, and uterine cancers don’t get nearly as much conversation as breast cancer.

But stigma shouldn’t decide survival rates. The more we talk about these cancers, the more likely people are to push for better screening, research, and treatment options.

3. Prevention and early detection should be prioritised

Some cancers (like cervical cancer) are highly preventable with proper screening and vaccination. But funding for prevention isn’t always prioritised, even when it could save thousands of lives.

What would actually make a difference?

• More funding for screening programmes, early detection saves lives. Simple as that.

• Better education on symptoms, if people don’t know what to look out for, they’re more likely to be diagnosed too late.

• Research into risk factors, if we know what’s causing certain cancers, we can reduce cases before they even start.

But it’s not just about money, it’s about where the money goes. Right now, too much focus is placed on treatment rather than stopping cancer before it starts.

4. Funding women’s health fairly

The data shows that male cancers receive more funding per case than female cancers, despite women’s cancers often having worse survival rates.

What needs to happen:

• Gynaecological cancers need more funding, plain and simple.

• Screening and education need investment because too many women don’t know the symptoms of ovarian, vulval, or uterine cancers until it’s too late.

• Research should focus on early detection and treatment improvements, just like it has for prostate cancer.

This isn’t about taking away from one group to fund another. It’s about levelling the playing field and ensuring research money is going where it’s needed most.

It’s time to rethink cancer funding

Right now, who survives cancer isn’t just about science, it’s about funding decisions.

We need to change the way research money is allocated, so it actually reflects how many people are affected, how deadly the cancer is, and how much can be done to detect it early.

Because funding decisions shouldn’t be based on history, awareness levels, or stigma. They should be based on saving lives.

And right now, we’re not funding the right cancers in the right way.

Time to fix that.

Methodology

• Cancer Research UK - Cancer Statistics for the UK.

• Gov.uk - The UK Charity Register.

Charities with an income of less than £1,000 in the last year have been removed.

Income for charities with interests in multiple specialist cancers has been divided by the total number of cancers they provide help for, ie, the income of charities that specify they provide help for “male cancers” has been divided by three (testicular, prostate, and penile).