California Voters Weigh $8.4 Billion Immunology Research Bond
Proposition 38 would finance research into diseases including cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. The measure requires 10% of revenue generated by funded research to go to the state’s General Fund until the bond and its interest are repaid; any further revenue would support future immunology research. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the bond would cost about $12 billion with interest, or $500 million to $600 million a year for roughly 20 years.
Supporters say California needs its own source of research funding as the Trump administration cuts federal support for science. They also point to a requirement that treatments developed with bond money be sold to California residents at least 20% below the national average price. Cancer survivor Andrew Dale says immunotherapy helped treat his lymphoma and argues that delays in developing new treatments could harm patients.
Opponents question whether the research will generate enough revenue to repay the borrowing. They say California would need more than $120 billion in related sales over 20 years to recover its investment, a target they consider speculative. They also object to reserving half the funding for one institute and say the remaining grants should be open to broader competition.
The eligibility criteria appear to leave one institute qualified: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, founded by measure backer Gary Michelson and affiliated with UCLA. The institute had three employees in September, and a UCLA official said it had spent about $20 million, despite a business plan projecting more than $200 million in personnel and construction costs by mid-2026. Michelson has donated more than $40 million to the campaign supporting the measure.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state Democratic Party and the state Republican Party have endorsed Proposition 38, along with patient and research groups. Supporters had raised $72 million compared with $12,000 for opponents as of October 26. Voters are also slated to consider a broader $7.5 billion science bond in March 2028.
California’s Research Future Is on the Ballot
California should not let promising medical research stall while the Trump administration cuts federal funding. Proposition 38 would direct $8.4 billion in state borrowing toward immunology research, splitting the money between one institute and research grants. Supporters say the investment could help develop treatments for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.
Patients have a stake in how quickly that work moves. Andrew Dale, whose lymphoma was treated with immunotherapy, says people are waiting for breakthroughs like the one that helped him. The measure also requires treatments developed with its funding to be sold to California residents at least 20% below the national average price.
Critics are right to scrutinize how the money is allocated, but their opposition risks leaving researchers without a dedicated source of support as federal funding contracts. Proposition 38 requires 10% of revenue from funded research to repay the state’s bond costs before any additional revenue goes to future research. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates borrowing will cost about $12 billion in total, including interest.
The measure’s rules appear to make the California immunology and immunotherapy center the only eligible recipient of half the funds. Gary Michelson, who founded the institute and has given more than $40 million to the campaign, is its largest backer. Opponents also question the institute’s staffing and spending, and doubt that research revenue can repay the state. Those concerns deserve scrutiny, but they should not obscure the potential cost of withholding research funding.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, both state parties and numerous patient and research groups support the measure. As of October 26, supporters had raised $72 million, compared with $12,000 for opponents.
California’s Costly Research Bond Risks Favoring One Institute
Proposition 38 asks California taxpayers to borrow $8.4 billion for a narrowly defined research program, with an estimated total cost of $12 billion after interest. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects annual payments of $500 million to $600 million for about 20 years—money that could otherwise support other state services.
The measure promises repayment through 10% of revenue from funded research, but opponents say California would need more than $120 billion in related sales over 20 years to recoup its investment. That outcome is uncertain, and critics argue the state should not treat speculative future discoveries as a dependable way to cover a large public debt.
The structure raises another concern: half the money is reserved for an institute whose eligibility rules appear to exclude every other California institution. The California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy was founded by Gary Michelson, who wrote the measure and has donated more than $40 million to its campaign. The institute had three employees in September, while a UCLA official said it had spent about $20 million against a plan projecting more than $200 million in personnel and construction costs by mid-2026.
Supporters argue that California needs research funding as federal science support is cut, and point to possible cures and lower prices for treatments. But those goals do not answer questions about transparency, competition or whether revenue can repay the bonds. Opponents say grants should be available to a wider range of public and nonprofit researchers.
Both state parties have endorsed Proposition 38, as have Gov. Gavin Newsom and patient and research groups. Voters are due to consider a broader $7.5 billion science bond in March 2028, making the case for a more competitive approach an immediate one.
Reported by CBS Los Angeles, CalMatters.
