By admin 
Immunology and immunotherapy research are good things.
Does that mean Californians ought to approve $8.4 billion in bonds to approve a plan developed outside the legislative process? That’s what backers of Proposition 38 on the November ballot believe needs to be done to, as they told the editorial board in an interview, “accelerate research to save lives.”
Read more Sacramento-area HS football has three active 200-game winning coaches. Who’s next?
But as always, it’s important to check the fine print.
Half of the funds would be doled out as competitive research grants. But then there’s the other half, which the measure details must go to “a single nonprofit medical research institute” that meets very particular requirements.
Among other requirements, the institute must have “an affiliation agreement, entered into not later than January 1, 2025, that creates an affiliation relationship with a campus of the University of California,” be on a campus that “has a public healthcare system that consists of one or more hospitals and that conducts its own clinical trials,” and be “not less than 200,000 square feet in size.” In addition, the healthcare system affiliated with the campus must also have “a hospital and clinic volume of greater than 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3,500,000 outpatient visits each year.”
This level of precision excludes “all but one institute in the entire state: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose prominent donor and co-founder is the chief backer of the proposition,” according to a CalMatters investigation. The billionaire co-founder of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy is Gary K. Michelson, who is also the chief backer of the Proposition 38 campaign.
While we have issues with most kinds of ballot-box budgeting, the measure should have been more honest and direct with voters. That’s why a proposed ballot measure to fund research that had gone through the public hearing process via the Legislature or a bond measure issuing solely competitive grants would be preferable to this sort of measure, which was drafted by interested parties who can’t or won’t just say what they’re doing.
Backers also argue Prop. 38 will in the end pay for itself because companies that make drugs made possible by this research would have to give back 10% of their earnings to help pay back the bond. “The bonds will be repaid with interest, relatively quickly,” backers told us. If that were so, we don’t see what’s stopping the billionaires backing this initiative from privately funding immunology research. If it’s truly a money-making enterprise, private investors will certainly be interested.
Read more Need a wine country getaway? This California spot is No. 1 in the nation
The editorial board also spoke with Dr. Robert Kaplan, a retired professor of health policy at UCLA, and David Panush, president of California Health Policy Strategies. Both are avid backers of medical research investment in our state. But they are co-chairing the No on Prop. 38 campaign because they say a huge bond is the wrong way to fund research. They decry Washington’s failure to back science, but say “federal cuts are no excuse to put billions in medical research spending on California’s credit card. We should fight to restore federal funding – not force California taxpayers to cover Washington’s retreat.”
Kaplan, who was an executive at the National Institutes of Health, notes that the promise to pay the state back from medical profits is an empty one, which would at best happen decades hence. Panush notes that similar promises from 2004’s stem cell research bond measure amounted to , which voters should keep in mind whenever they hear proponents of Prop. 38 declare this time will be different.
Finally, it’s important to remember this measure isn’t free. The Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that repaying the bond will require $500 million to $600 million in spending out of the state general fund for 20 years. That’s money that could be used to tackle homelessness, public safety, or take pressure off of taxpayers the next time Sacramento looks for a tax hike. Or, if proponents of Prop. 38 really had a strong case, that amount could also go toward direct funding, without costly interest payments, of immunology research.
No matter how one looks at it, Prop. 38 makes little sense unless your research institution expects to get a windfall of public funds. Vote No on Prop. 38.
Read more Tennessee man accused of sextorting Placer County child for nude images, sheriff says
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.
This story was originally published August 23, 2026 at 5:13 AM.