Prop. 38: This billionaire-backed measure would approve $8.4 billion for health research

In summary

Supporters say Prop. 38 is needed to ensure health research dollars keep flowing even as Trump tries to cut science. Opponents say the measure is poorly written, lacks transparency and seems to heavily benefit one particular nonprofit.

Your November ballot includes billions of dollars in proposed bonds, including money for immunology research in an effort to find cures for Alzheimer’s, cancer, heart disease and other ailments.

Proposition 38 would provide $8.4 billion to California’s public and nonprofit health laboratories to find cures for the diseases affecting the immune system. Half the money would go to one unnamed research institute meeting specific requirements. 

Reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s primary funder was billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and was by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

The bond is expected to cost a total of $12 billion with interest — about $500 million to $600 million annually for some 20 years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Like all bonds the state issues, borrowing over time means spending more on the project than paying for it upfront. But issuing bonds allows the state to continue spending on other services, from schools and student financial aid to consumer health subsidies and running prisons. 

Arguments for and against measure

The backers of Prop. 38 argue that as the Trump administration seeks to pull federal science funding from California and elsewhere, a California-only health research fund is essential.  

They say the bond spending would pay for itself, since Prop. 38 ensures that 10% of the revenue generated from research would go back to the state’s coffers. And cures funded with Prop. 38 money must be cheaper when sold to California residents — 20% less than the average national price.

But opponents of Prop. 38 don’t believe drug companies or other firms could produce enough sales to actually make the measure neutral in cost to California. Revenue from research funded by the bond would need to exceed $120 billion after 20 years for California to recoup its investment.

“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 biologist at UC Davis who has received several million dollars in ultra-competitive federal grants from the National Institutes of Health. He spoke at an October press conference hosted by the campaign opposing Prop. 38. 

California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy signed an affiliation agreement with UCLA in 2024, which promises UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue from any drugs or research created by the institute’s staff that go to market. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board.

Additional reporting by CalMatters shows that the California institute had only three employees as of September — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year. It’s supposed to employ an additional 90 employees, including leading scientists, by next summer. The institute’s five-year business plan and budget show it was projected to spend more than $200 million on personnel and construction by mid-2026. A senior UCLA official in September said that the institute has spent closer to $20 million.

Opponents of Prop. 38 fault the measure for requiring half the money go to a single institute and limiting which other researchers can receive the other half. They say science research is best performed in a competitive environment that’s open to all of California’s nonprofit and public university scientists.

Dr. Susan Bookheimer, a UCLA researcher on Alzheimer’s and autism who also spoke at the press conference, said other major science funding initiatives penalize applicants if they don’t possess the necessary staff and equipment when they submit applications. Bookheimer has secured more than $100 million in federal research grants from the National Institutes of Health. 

But Andrew Dale backs Prop. 38 for its emphasis on immunology research and cures. He is a cancer survivor whose lymphoma was treated with an immunotherapy about a decade ago.

“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 at a September press conference hosted by the Yes on 38 campaign.  

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38. So has the state’s GOP as well as dozens of patient and research advocacy groups. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers at the University of California, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. Backers of Prop. 38 outraised the no camp $72 million to $12,000 as of Oct. 26.

A poll last week indicated that 57% of likely voters backed Prop. 38, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. 

Voters will have an opportunity to decide on another large science bond measure in March 2028. That election is slated to include a proposition approved this summer by the Legislature and Newsom that would sell $7.5 billion in bonds for a far wider array of science research, such as biomedical research, wildfire prevention and water supply.

via CalMatters https://ift.tt/YZjaEVX