The measure would allow the state to borrow $8.4 billion and distribute it to nonprofit research centers studying immunotherapy treatments for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Half of the funds would go to a specialized immunology institute affiliated with the University of California, to be chosen by the California Department of Public Health according to strict criteria. The other half would be awarded through competitive grants. The measure would cost the state about $500 million a year for 20 years in bond repayments.
Yes Argument
The funds would bring stability to immunology research and clinical trials at a time when federal funding is unreliable and uncertain. Immunotherapies harness the body’s own immune system to recognize and fight disease, and they are already saving lives. The measure is designed to pay for itself, returning 10% of licensing revenues derived from successful treatment discoveries back to the state. Californians would receive a 20% discount on these therapies.
No Argument
Medical research is vitally important, but it should not be funded through the ballot box. The way the measure is written, half the money would go to an institute at UCLA funded by the same billionaire who paid to put Proposition 38 on the ballot. Research priorities should be established by rigorous scientific review and public health need. Because drug development is speculative, there is no guarantee the research will yield returns sufficient to be cost-neutral.
Key Supporters
In Support
- Alzheimer’s Association
- Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research
- Michelson Center for Public Policy
- National Multiple Sclerosis Society
In Opposition
- Robert M. Kaplan, biomedical researcher and administrator, Stanford University School of Medicine
- Courage California
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- League of Women Voters California
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?
Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?
Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?
Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?