With two weeks to the November 3 vote, California’s Proposition 38 has split the community it is meant to fund. STAT reported on October 19 that the top US immunology association is divided over the $8.4 billion bond measure, with internal emails showing the argument turning on the measure’s design: half the money does not go through open competition.
The measure, the California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative, authorises $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. Approximately $4.2 billion goes to a single nonprofit medical research institute affiliated with a University of California campus and selected by the state Department of Public Health against criteria written into the initiative. The other $4.2 billion funds competitive grants to public and nonprofit universities and research institutions. At least half of all funding must support cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s research, recipients must return 10 percent of resulting revenue to the state, and treatments developed with the money are to be sold in California at least 20 percent below the national average price.
The single institute design is the controversy. The seven eligibility criteria in the text match the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose co-founder, spinal surgery inventor Gary K. Michelson, is the campaign’s dominant funder. Critics, including former NIH associate director Robert Kaplan, who signed the ballot argument against, argue that grants should be awarded through open competition; supporters, including the Alzheimer’s Association and other patient groups, argue the scale and speed are the point, in a year when federal research budgets are under pressure.
The fiscal exposure is material state debt. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates repayment at $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years from the General Fund, partly or wholly offset only if funded research generates revenue, which is uncertain and slow. California has run this play before with the stem cell agency CIRM, which was built on competitive grants and public oversight; Proposition 38’s exempt, single institute half is the departure, and it is why a funding measure with no organised opposition campaign is still arguing with itself in October.