California voters will decide in November whether Proposition (Prop) 38 should authorize substantial state funding for immunology and immunotherapy research.
The initiative would fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at harnessing the body’s immune system to develop new treatments, medical procedures and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.
More specifically, Prop 38, titled the Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative, is split into three main components that would go into effect if passed.
First, the initiative would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to support immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half of the bond proceeds, or $4.2 billion, would be dedicated exclusively to research.
Additionally, Prop 38 would make it mandatory for the state to enter into an agreement with a qualified nonprofit institute focused and dedicated to researching immunology and immunotherapy within 90 days of the initiative’s effective date. The research institute must be affiliated with the University of California.
The third component mandates that the remaining bond revenue must be directed to California-based public and nonprofit medical institutions through a peer-reviewed grant process.
California would borrow the $8.4 billion with issues of bonds and would repay the debt over time with interest. Eventually, over an estimated 20-year span, taxpayers would repay the bonds. In the language of the initiative, the “increased state cost would be $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.”
For the grant process, the initiative would create an Advisory and Accountability Research Council. The council’s role would be to set specific criteria and the research priorities.
California voters have voted on similar propositions in the past, although they had a different focus.
In 2004, with Proposition 71, and 2020, with Proposition 14, voters approved stem-cell research initiatives that follow a base model that closely resembles Prop 38. Prop 71, focused on stem-cell research and facilities, committed $3 billion in bonds for research while Prop 14, focused on continued stem-cell research with emphasis on brain and nervous system diseases, increased the amount to $5.5 billion. Prop 38 uses a similar funding model but focuses on immunology, not stem‑cell research.
“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition.
Along with the campaign, organizations that have publicly supported the ballot initiative include the California Democratic Party, The ALS Association, Alzheimer’s treatment and advocacy organizations, California Black Health Network, Parkinson Association of Northern California and Reform California among others.
Arguing that the initiative could lead to potentially life-saving research, supporters also say the initiative could reduce healthcare costs, generate revenue and improve access to treatments if discoveries are found successful.
“California has an opportunity to accelerate lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Immunotherapies work differently than traditional treatments. Instead of attacking cells directly, they empower the body’s own immune system to recognize and stop disease. Today, these therapies are already treating certain cancers and chronic conditions — and researchers continue to expand what’s possible. This initiative invests in proven science so cures can move from the lab to patients faster,” said the campaign.
No on Proposition 38 is leading the campaign against the measure, with support from the League of Women Voters of California. Opponents argue that California cannot afford to assume $8.4 billion in debt for medical research that may not produce definitive results. They also object to directing more than half of the bond proceeds — $4.2 billion — to a single qualifying nonprofit research institute, arguing that funding decisions of this magnitude should be made through the state’s regular budget process.
“Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it. It would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research and require the state to make $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for about 20 years. Those payments would come from the General Fund, which also pays for schools, health care, and other public services,” the League of Women Voters of California said.
A “yes” vote would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy medical research.
A “no” vote would reject the proposed bond funding.
