California voters appeared to approve Proposition 38 on Tuesday, a multibillion-dollar bond measure aimed at boosting immune-system research in hopes of finding treatments for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s and heart disease. Early returns showed the measure passing with about 58% support to 42% opposed.
The proposition authorizes the state to borrow $8.4 billion for public and nonprofit health research institutions studying immunology, with half of that funding earmarked for a single, unnamed research institute that meets a specific set of criteria.
According to reporting from CalMatters, only one organization in California currently qualifies under those terms: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. That institute has been largely funded by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who authored the ballot measure and was its dominant financial backer during the campaign.
With interest, the bond is projected to cost taxpayers roughly $12 billion over time — an estimated $500 million to $600 million a year for about two decades, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Like other state bonds, the arrangement spreads out payments rather than requiring the state to cover costs immediately, freeing up funds for other priorities such as education, health programs and prison operations, even though it ultimately costs more than paying outright.
Supporters of Prop. 38 argue the funding is critical at a moment when the Trump administration has moved to cut federal science research dollars, leaving California vulnerable without its own dedicated funding stream. They contend the measure is designed to eventually pay for itself: 10% of any revenue generated through licensing immune-related therapies developed with bond money would be returned to the state to offset borrowing costs. Additionally, any treatments developed using Prop. 38 funding would have to be sold to Californians at a price at least 20% below the national average.
Critics, however, question whether that revenue-sharing plan is realistic. For the state to break even after 20 years, research funded by the bond would need to generate more than $120 billion in revenue — a bar opponents call unreasonably high.
“It is remarkably hard to do, and I don’t see any justification for the speculation that they’re going to bring in this much money to pay back the people of California,” said Jonathan Eisen, a UC Davis biologist who has received millions of dollars in competitive federal research grants through the National Institutes of Health. He made the comments during an October news conference organized by opponents of the measure.
Scrutiny has also focused on the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy’s ties to UCLA. The two entities signed an affiliation agreement in 2024 that grants UCLA 7.5% of net revenue from any marketed drugs or discoveries tied to the institute’s researchers. Four senior UCLA officials also serve on the institute’s governing board.
Further CalMatters reporting found that as of September, the institute employed just three people — well short of the 51 staffers it had projected to have on board by last year. Its business plan calls for ramping up to 90 additional employees, including top scientific researchers, by next summer. The institute’s five-year budget anticipated spending more than $200 million on staffing and facilities by mid-2026, but a senior UCLA official said in September that actual spending was closer to $20 million.
Opponents also criticized the structure of the measure itself, arguing that directing half the bond funding to one institute — while limiting competition for the remaining funds among the state’s broader scientific community — runs counter to how successful research funding typically works. Dr. Susan Bookheimer, a UCLA researcher focused on Alzheimer’s and autism who has secured more than $100 million in federal grants, said other major funding programs generally penalize applicants who lack established infrastructure, something she said raises concerns about fairness in Prop. 38’s funding model.
Still, many patients and advocacy groups rallied behind the measure, citing the promise of faster breakthroughs in immunotherapy. Andrew Dale, a lymphoma survivor whose cancer was treated with immunotherapy roughly a decade ago, said during a September campaign event that patients can’t afford delays in potentially life-saving research.
“Patients right now are waiting on the same kind of breakthroughs that saved me, and any type of delays, it could cost them the time they just don’t have,” he said.
The measure drew support from both major political parties, with endorsements from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party and the state Republican Party, along with numerous patient advocacy and research organizations. The union representing University of California graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, many of whom depend on research funding for their pay, also backed the proposition.
Financially, the campaign supporting Prop. 38 vastly outspent its opposition, raising about $72 million compared to just $12,000 raised by opponents as of late October. A Public Policy Institute of California survey conducted last week found 57% of likely voters supported the measure heading into Election Day.
Voters can expect another major science funding decision in the near future. In March 2028, Californians will consider a separate $7.5 billion bond measure approved by the Legislature and Newsom this summer, which would fund a broader range of scientific research, including biomedical studies, wildfire prevention efforts and water supply projects.
Original source: CalMatters
