More environmentally sustainable cancer research

It’s becoming ever clearer that biomedical research has a considerable impact on the environment.

For example, just two clinical trials we funded at the Institute of Cancer Research had a collective carbon footprint of over 160 tonnes. And the relationship between the environment and cancer is a two-way street, as the link between air pollution and certain cancers demonstrates.

We’ve heard the calls for the research system to be more environmentally sustainable and it’s clear that funders like us have a key part to play. Change is needed quickly, even if that means altering the way we approach research and reviewing the practices that influence its environmental impact.

That’s why we’re building on our environmental position statement by introducing new requirements for researchers and organisations as part of our new policy on environmental sustainability in research.

We won’t be alone in that regard – with other research funders introducing requirements of their own – and we anticipate evolving requirements as the research system develops new means to become ‘greener’.

And this is just one part of how we’re aiming to reduce our environmental impact as a charity.

What this policy requires from you

From 2026, we’ll require researchers applying to the majority of our funding schemes to hold accreditation demonstrating the environmental sustainability of their laboratories.

Researchers will be able to choose between the Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework, known as LEAF, and the My Green Lab certification (both known as “green lab certifications”).

We want the cancer research field to be increasingly sustainable, built upon more efficient research practices and reuse. More sustainable research can be achieved even ‘away from the bench’, through better data sharing that limits other researchers unnecessarily replicating experiments and the environmental impact associated with that duplication of effort.

Although cancer researchers are already engaged in making research more sustainable, many of you will need to make broader changes to practices in the laboratory.

We know this will take time and effort and we don’t expect you to make changes alone. That’s why we will require institutions hosting our funded researchers to develop a broad strategy for sustainability in research and join us in signing the Environmental Sustainability Concordat by 2026. That means supporting you with some of the bigger changes needed for greener research, like improving laboratory waste management.

We’ll also be highlighting simple tips and ideas for making your research more sustainable with blogs and events throughout this year and 2025. We’ve updated our cost guidance for grantholders to emphasise how our funding can be used to purchase more sustainable materials and equipment, as well as for travel with a lower carbon footprint.

A combined effort

Reducing the environmental impact of cancer research requires everyone to contribute – and that includes us. Alongside changes for individual grant applicants, we will require all labs and facilities associated with Cancer Research Horizons and across our four institutes to hold LEAF accreditation by 2026. We’ve also signed the Environmental Sustainability Concordat and will lay out a sustainability strategy of our own.

And as we embark together on a journey towards a leaner, greener cancer research field, we want you to share any challenges you face as you transition to more sustainable research practices and how we might be able to support you – and of course we want to hear from you what you’re doing that is working.

The analogy I often use is health & safety – when we asked laboratories to improve their safety, we didn’t ask them to each invent their own set of rules separately, a standardised approach was developed. Why not do this for sustainability as well?

Ok, so why should scientists become accredited?

The great part here is that there’s often a benefit to everyone. Above all, the environmental sustainability of our research spaces are improved, and carbon emissions are reduced. That’s a win for everyone. Beyond this though, research and technical staff will gain external recognition for sustainability, which is important when many sustainability actions are voluntary. The science itself can benefit also, in that sustainability actions can lead to cost savings, as well as align with good lab practice.

On an individual level, are there things researchers can do – as opposed from their host institutions – to really change things?

There’s a great variety of ways researchers can really change things. They can implement changes within their labs themselves, for e.g. introducing a new form of reuse, or validating a low-carbon material for a protocol. Such actions benefit the environment, but also can inspire others to act. Scientists can also advocate for change, in their own institutions or beyond. The understanding of climate change is thanks to the work of researchers and communicators, and so scientists can advocate the need for action, as well as research and communicate solutions.

How have you seen environmental sustainability change in research over the years?

I’ve been fortunate to have worked for over a decade in working towards more environmentally sustainable research, and it’s really motivating to see the appetite from the research community for solutions regarding environmental sustainability. I suppose this isn’t surprising, in that we have this same community to thank for the science that’s allowed us to understand the challenge of climate change. Beyond individuals though, we’ve seen a groundswell of activity from institutions, funders, and industry as well. We haven’t found all the solutions yet, but we’re getting there.

You helped us with our environmental sustainability policy – how important is it that organisations like CRUK set expectations for researchers in this way?

Funders, like all parties, play a crucial role driving sustainable research. Having a funder like CRUK develop environmental sustainability policy sends a signal to the research community that this is being taken more seriously, and that the system is moving from voluntary individual action to collaborative and standardised approach, which long-term will benefit all. It’s incredibly exciting to be able to support such work, as well as continue to develop it.