Future at Risk: Why We Can’t Turn Back Now with Josh Newby
Live from Stage 4 | Episode # 10| 12/31/2025 | Interview
Listen to full episode :
Guests
Josh Newby
Founder and Executive Director of Theresa’s Research Foundation (TRF), a national 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to funding metastatic breast cancer (MBC) research and improving patient outcomes.
Professional Background & Advocacy
Foundation Leadership: Co-founded the foundation in 2013 with his mother, Theresa Newby Harpole, following her 2010 diagnosis. After her passing in late 2013, Newby made it his life’s mission to continue her vision of accelerating curative approaches for MBC.
MBC Alliance: Newly elected Vice-Chair of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance.
Academic Roles: He has served in various administrative roles for over 10 years at the Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, where he focused on connecting researchers with the community.
Advocacy Credentials: Newby is a trained advocate for breast cancer research, a Komen Advocate in Science, and a graduate of the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) Project LEAD program.
Key Contributions
MBC Research Conference: He established an annual research conference focused exclusively on MBC, which brings together scientists and patient advocates to foster collaboration.
Published Frameworks: In 2022 and 2025, Newby co-authored research papers and white papers aimed at creating a framework for researchers to include patient advocates in their scientific processes.
Current Initiatives: As of 2025, he continues to lead TRF, with a renewed focus on providing patients with access to the latest treatment and research information.
Personal Connection
Newby is a BRCA2 carrier, which provides him with a unique perspective on breast cancer risk and prevention for both men and women. He has relocated to Houston to work closely with top clinicians and scientists, such as Dr. Matthew Ellis, to change the odds for those living with MBC.
Quick Summary
As we release this episode on December 31st 2025—the final day of a challenging year—we invite you to join co-host Martha Carlson and Victoria Goldberg for a conversation with Josh Newby, a leading voice in the metastatic breast cancer community and the Founder and Executive Director of Theresa’s Research Foundation. Following his mother’s diagnosis and passing, Josh dedicated his life to accelerating curative research, eventually establishing the foundation and its annual MBC Research Conference to bridge the gap between scientists and patients. Today, we’re discussing his mission to change the odds for those living with MBC and his latest 2025 initiatives to integrate patient voices directly into the scientific process.
We also look back on a year marked by uncertainty, funding setbacks, and shifting priorities in cancer research, but also forward with hope and determination.
Together, we reflect on the lessons learned, the resilience of the advocacy community, and the reasons we can’t afford to turn back now.
As we stand at the threshold of a new year, this episode is a reminder that even in the toughest times, there is promise in perseverance, power in collaboration, and hope in the unwavering pursuit of progress. Let’s step into the new year inspired by the stories, insights, and commitment shared in this conversation.
Key Takeaways
Foundation Origins and Mission: Josh explains how his foundation was created to focus on metastatic breast cancer (MBC), its early challenges, and its evolution from organizing medical conferences to prioritizing curative approaches and advocacy.
Funding Challenges: The conversation highlights the ongoing difficulties in securing research funding, especially due to inflation, budget cuts, and shifting government priorities. The impact of these changes on early-career investigators and research progress is emphasized.
Collaboration and Partnerships: There is a strong focus on the importance of collaboration—among institutions, industry partners, and patient advocates—to drive research forward and bridge funding gaps.
Role of Patient Advocates: The script underscores the critical role of patient advocates in shaping research priorities, creating urgency, and supporting the community. The need for more advocates and better guidance for newly diagnosed patients is discussed.
Impact of Political and Economic Uncertainty: The speakers discuss how political cycles, economic instability, and rapid changes in funding create uncertainty for researchers, institutions, and patients, making long-term planning difficult.
Need for Credible Information and Community Support: The group talks about the importance of finding reliable information, the risks of misinformation, and the value of peer support networks for patients.
Resilience and Hope: Despite the challenges, the conversation is marked by a sense of determination and hope. The speakers stress the importance of not giving up, staying present, and continuing to push for progress in metastatic breast cancer research and advocacy.
Summary
Na recounts how a newly accepted tenure-track job offer was rescinded due to university budget shifts and federal funding uncertainty, upending plans already strained by dual-career and family responsibilities. After a long, difficult job-search and grant-writing process, the loss forced her to confront practical dilemmas (spousal employment, childcare, startup funding) and emotional responses. Despite uncertainty about activating an NIH K award or securing a lab, she resolves to continue doing science, care for their family, and persistently pursue grants and opportunities as an act of resilience.
Main takeaways
- Academic career progress can reverse suddenly due to institutional budget decisions and shifting federal policy.
- Funding requirements (external grants) and university indirect-cost concerns heavily shape hiring outcomes.
- Dual-career and parenting realities add major practical constraints to academic moves and decisions.
- Even a fundable grant may be unusable without sufficient institutional startup support.
- Emotional tolls include anxiety, sleeplessness, and the need to balance career ambition with family commitments.
- Perspective helps: larger tragedies reframe personal setbacks and can foster acceptance.
- Practical resilience = continue doing the work (research, grant writing) and seeking options while managing family duties.
- Outcomes remain uncertain, but persistence, flexibility, and incremental efforts matter.
.
More on MBC DART
On November 13, 2025, nonprofit Alliance member Theresa’s Research hosted its inaugural Metastatic Breast Cancer: Discovery & Accelerating Research Together (MBC DART) Symposium in Texas. The Symposium brought together oncologists, researchers, patient advocates, industry and other stakeholders for sessions and workshops focused on Gene & Cellular Therapy, Clinical Trials, Therapeutics such as ADC’s, Biomarkers, CDK4/6 Resistance, Triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (TNBC), inflammatory breast cancer and commercialization. The Symposium served as the formal kickoff of a new initiative led by Theresa’s Research that will bring together strategic partners to develop innovative research projects, with the goal of driving progress towards curative approaches.
More on NIH Grant Scoring
Scoring system
Government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) use a peer review system with specific scoring scales and criteria to evaluate research grant applications.
The scoring systems are designed to assess the quality, impact, and feasibility of a research proposal, allowing panels of independent experts to filter applications and recommend the most promising ones for funding.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Scoring System
The NIH uses a 9-point scale where 1 is the best (Exceptional) and 9 is the worst (Poor).
Overall Impact Score: This is the key outcome, reflecting the reviewers' assessment of the project's potential to have a sustained, powerful influence on its field. Final scores range from 10 to 90 (10 is best) after calculation by averaging and multiplying the mean by 10.
Criterion Scores: Reviewers also provide scores for specific criteria to help applicants understand the strengths and weaknesses of their application.
Review Criteria: As of January 25, 2025, most NIH research project grants (R-series) are reviewed under a simplified framework that organizes the criteria into three main factors:
Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation)
Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach)
Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator(s) and Environment), which is evaluated as "sufficient" or "not sufficient" rather than receiving a numerical score.
Applications with favorable scores typically undergo a second level of review by an advisory council before a final funding decision is made based on available funds and program priorities.
While systems vary by agency, the general process for government-funded research grants typically involves:
Initial Screening: Applications are first checked for basic requirements and eligibility.
Peer Review: Independent experts assess the technical and programmatic quality of the application using established criteria and scoring systems.
Funding Decision: The agency makes a final determination based on review outcomes, available budget, and strategic priorities
