Leslie Jimenez, a biomedical engineering senior, experienced the hardships of cancer within her family. She credits the American Cancer Society for giving her family the resources they needed and is now the vice president of its college branch at Cal Poly.

“That program has helped my family personally, all of the profits that we make, we don’t keep any of it,” Jimenez said. “We give all of that to cancer research.”

Cancer’s effects span further than Jimenez’s family, and Proposition 38 could provide $8.4 billion in cancer research to a qualified University of California research facility and create research grants for immunology, according to CalMatters. The proposition will be on the Nov. 3 ballot.

READ MORE: What’s on the Nov. 3 ballot?

If a successful drug is created through the proposition-funded research, 10% of profits would go towards paying back the bond. Any technology or drug created through the research will be sold at a 20% discount for California residents, according to the proposition text.

Half of the bond funds would go to a University of California research facility while the rest would become research grants for which immunology researchers can apply.

The California Department of Public Health would determine the university research facility selected for the $4.2 billion. The research institution must meet a specific set of criteria, according to the proposition text:: 

  • The campus must have a graduate training program in immunology and immunotherapy
  • The campus must be “independent, collaborative, and innovative” while having some form of affiliation with the University of California
  • The institution must have no less than $250 million of funds in philanthropic donations or fundraising
  • The institute selected must have no less than 200,000 square feet of space or land dedicated to research

The only institution that fits the requirements to receive half of the funding from the bond is the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy at UCLA, according to CalMatters.

Philanthropist and medical inventor Gary Michelson put the proposition on the ballot.

Support for the proposition

The California Democratic Party and the American Association of Immunologists endorsed the proposition.

Supporters for the bill claim the bill was necessary due to attempted budget cuts from the Trump administration.  

The administration’s cuts to National Institutes of Health have created a need for supplemental funding towards health science research, according to the Yes on 38 campaign website. 

Supporters of the proposition say funding the research will allow California to facilitate opportunities for lifesaving medical breakthroughs. 

The bill is designed to ensure no costs to taxpayers, promises strong accountability through independent audits and would give Californians a 20% discount on all treatments created from bond funding, according to the Secretary of State voting guide. 

“This measure will strengthen California’s research and clinical trial infrastructure, helping patients access cutting-edge therapies sooner while accelerating the search for cures,” Adam Zarrin, regional director of state government affairs for Blood Cancer United, wrote in support of Proposition 38.

Opposition for the proposition

Stanford University School of Medicine and League of Women Voters oppose Proposition 38.

“A ‘No’ vote does not reject science. It rejects an inefficient financing mechanism and a fragmented approach to setting research priorities,” Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at Stanford University said in an opposing statement. “California can and should support research through more coordinated, sustainable policies.”

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates annual payments of $500 million to $600 million for the next 20 years to repay the bond’s debt. 

Ten percent of profits from related discoveries would go toward repaying the bond. However, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, it could take decades for the revenue from these discoveries to offset the bond cost. The amount of revenue that could be profitable is still uncertain.

Opponents are concerned about the “lack of transparency” around the measure and one research institution receiving half the bond. 

Those opposed to the proposition also critique it for focusing on a specific portion of biomedical research instead of looking at health research as a whole.