This story was originally published by Capitol Weekly.
Painful is one word to describe the past 18 months for California researchers affected by the Trump administration’s assault on science. And the pain was compounded in June in the Capitol when the state’s housing affordability crisis blocked a $23 billion scientific research rescue plan from this fall’s ballot.
A brighter side has emerged, however, for scientists, lab techs and thousands of others involved in finding and financing revolutionary medical treatments: Billions of dollars continue to flow unimpeded from the Golden State’s stem cell and gene therapy agency.
One might consider it a gift from 2004. That is when the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was created by voters via a ballot initiative. CIRM is on a record-setting funding pace, thanks to the agency’s legal isolation from the Trump administration’s machinations.
Another reason exists for some optimism among researchers – a $12 billion ballot initiative actually on the fall ballot. It is Proposition 38, which would provide $8.4 billion for immunology research involving a wide range of afflictions, including cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease.
A caveat exists, however. The $8.4 billion would be borrowed by the state. Interest expense would raise the measure’s cost to an estimated $12 billion, according to the state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst. Ultimately, the interest would be paid by royalties if possible therapies are commercialized, backers of the measure believe.
The stories of CIRM, the $23 billion proposal and the $12 billion immunology initiative are part of a mixed picture heavily colored by the Trump administration. Its actions since February 2025 have imperiled ongoing research and created pervasive fears of layoffs at University of California (UC) laboratories and other research institutions, both public and private.
The immunology measure is reminiscent of the two voter initiatives that created and refinanced CIRM, also at about a $12 billion cost to taxpayers. Like the immunology proposal, CIRM uses state bonds to support research. California is the only state in the nation to borrow money at this scale for scientific research. More commonly, state bonds are used to finance roads, schools, and bridges.
In June, CIRM’s directors approved spending a record $662 million during this fiscal year for research awards, which include training and education. The agency has another $3 billion to spend, which it projects it will award over the next six years.
That will mean hundreds of millions of dollars annually for gene therapy and stem cell research. The spending would include a total of $1 billion for clinical research, the final stage before a treatment can win federal approval for widespread use.
Other than Trump administration actions, the biggest setback this year for California researchers came quietly during a June 24 meeting of the state Assembly Appropriations Committee. Backers of the proposed $23 billion research measure were told then by the chair of the committee, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), that they did not have the support of the legislative leadership or the governor. Instead, a $11 billion housing affordability bond measure would be placed on this November’s ballot.
However, the proposed research bond legislation (SB 895) by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) managed to survive the rebuff and is slated for the March 2028 ballot. But it was cut severely to provide only $7.5 billion. Interest on the borrowed money would increase its cost by a few billion. The research could range from biomedical efforts to smog, agriculture and rising sea levels.
The Wiener proposal stalled despite support from the University of California, Stanford University and the United Auto Workers, which represents 60,000 UC employees.
It was knocked off this fall’s ballot by political strategies tied to the housing affordability measure, which ranks as voters’ top concern. Housing backers feared voters would be overwhelmed by many billions in bond measures on the ballot, leading to possible rejection of all of them.
That possibility could affect Proposition 38. It could also fall victim to voters’ reluctance to borrow more billions. But the measure’s backers make a strong pitch that it will help to alleviate suffering from a wide range of afflictions affecting millions of households in California.
“Many doctors and research scientists believe immunotherapies have the potential to prevent and cure a whole range of diseases and other health conditions in our lifetime, including cancer, heart disease, neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), HIV/AIDS, muscular dystrophy, and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and multiple sclerosis,” Proposition 38 backers said in the proposed measure.
Proposition 38 requires that at least $4.2 billion be used specifically for research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s, according to the state Legislative Analyst.
The other half of the $8.4 billion would go to an immunology and immunotherapy research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health, almost certainly at UCLA. The sponsor of Proposition 38, Gary K. Michelson, donated $120 million to help create the UCLA program, which has been described as a “Field of Dreams” for biomedical research. Michelson is an orthopedic surgeon, medical inventor and billionaire philanthropist.
No grants would go to private businesses, only nonprofits or academic institutions. Any therapies that would be developed would “be made available to California patients at a price discounted by 20 percent.”
The immunology effort would be largely controlled by the University of California. The measure creates an executive committee consisting of seven UC campus chancellors who would appoint members to a council that would set research priorities and grant approval criteria.
The council would approve applications while the state Department of Public Health would administer the awards.
Opposition to Proposition 38 has surfaced online. “A billionaire is pushing Prop. 38. It steers $4.2 billion to one institution. And California taxpayers get the bill—for 20 years,” says the headline on the opponents’ website.
The ballot argument against the measure was authored by Robert M. Kaplan, a senior scholar at the Stanford School of Medicine Clinical Excellence Research Center. “Continued investment in science is essential,” he wrote, but the measure’s “financing and policy framework are flawed.”
“A ‘No’ vote does not reject science. It rejects an inefficient financing mechanism and a fragmented approach to setting research priorities. California can and should support medical research through more coordinated, sustainable policies.”
Kaplan endorsed the approach in Wiener’s bill. “California has better options. For example, Senator Scott Wiener has proposed creating a state-funded research agency modeled on the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Rather than directing resources to specific areas of science, such an institution could establish priorities through expert scientific review and adapt its investments as new opportunities emerge,” Kaplan said.
David Jensen is a retired newsman and has covered CIRM for 21 years on his newsletter, the California Stem Cell Report. He authored the book, “California’s Great Stem Cell Experiment,” in 2020.
Capitol Weekly covers California government and politics in order to enlighten and educate Californians about public policy and state governance, and to provide a platform for engagement with public officials, advocates and political interests.
