Having a coordinated and comprehensive record of what cancer research is carried out, where it is done and how much funding goes to particular specialties would be extremely useful. Not only would it help funding agencies assess how best to allocate grants, but it would also help researchers to identify new research opportunities and develop collaborations.

Liam O'Toole et al. report on a new initiative from the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) that has gone some way towards developing such a resource in the UK (see page 139). A similar initiative is in progress in the United States. The NCRI have categorized data gathered from the various funding bodies for cancer research in the UK into broad areas such as biology, aetiology and treatment. The finding that nearly half the funding goes towards biology research is perhaps not surprising, and they now plan to do a more detailed analysis to inform strategic planning and help shape individual research proposals.

It would be interesting to know if the productivity and advances in a particular discipline reflect the amount of funding allocated to it. About 20,000 articles on p53 and cancer exist; in fact, we publish two this month. Patrick Chène discusses p53–MDM2 as a target for cancer therapy on page 102 and Andrei Gudkov and Elena A. Komarova describe the role of p53 in determining tumour radiosenstivity on page 117. By contrast, much less funding would be expected for an emerging field in cancer research, such as the role of endothelin in cancer development (Joel Nelson et al. on page 110).

Coordinating cancer research activity at both a national and international level is desirable to make the best use of our resources — both in terms of finance and knowledge.