Immunology research initiative qualifies for November ballot

An initiative seeking to fund immunology and immunotherapy research through an $8.4 billion state bond qualified Tuesday for the November ballot.

If approved by voters, the California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative would provide funding for California-based public and nonprofit universities and medical research institutions to conduct immunotherapy research aimed at preventing and curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s and heart disease.

Unlike traditional treatments such as chemotherapy, which attack diseased cells directly, immunotherapies stimulate the body’s immune system to fight diseases. California is the leading state in biomedical innovation, according to the Cure Innovation Index, and has been central to immunotherapy breakthroughs in recent years.

However, the Trump administration’s cuts and freezes to thousands of medical research grants last year prompted Californians to develop the statewide funding proposal, said Claudia Briggs, communications lead for the initiative.

“We all know somebody that is either in our family, or a friend, or a loved one, who is facing one of these debilitating diseases,” Briggs said. “It’s extremely important for us to do whatever we can to ensure that the progress that has been made in landing some of these medical breakthroughs continues.”

The measure directs half of the bond proceeds to a single nonprofit immunology research institute affiliated with the University of California. The initiative’s principal financial backer, billionaire philanthropist and medical inventor Gary Michelson, pledged $120 million in 2024 to launch the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, a UCLA-affiliated research center expected to open in 2027.

The remaining funds would be awarded competitively to California public and nonprofit research institutions.

Organizations such as the ALS Association and the Alzheimer’s Association support the measure, citing the need for sustained and reliable investment to have breakthroughs in medical research. The initiative’s main opposition centers on debt concerns and the structure of the funding, which would cost the state an estimated $500 million each year over a 25-year period to repay the bond, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Briggs said the measure is designed to eventually pay for itself by requiring institutions receiving initiative funding to return 10% of revenue generated from licensing therapies to the state. The measure also requires any resulting cures or immunotherapies to be made available to California patients at prices at least 20% below the national average.

Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at Stanford School of Medicine’s Clinical Excellence Research Center and former associate director of the National Institutes of Health, criticized the practice of funding research focused on specific diseases rather than investing in medical research more broadly in a May opinion piece for The Sacramento Bee.

“A well-functioning research system allocates resources based on scientific opportunity and population health needs, not on which diseases gain traction at the ballot box,” Kaplan wrote.

Despite criticism over the structure of the funding, California voters have previously backed large biomedical research initiatives. In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, creating the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and authorizing $3 billion in bond funding for stem cell research. Voters approved an additional $5.5 billion for the institute in 2020.

“This is such an important matter to the state of California and the quickest way to make this happen is to bring it to the voters,” Briggs said.