In November, California voters will decide on Proposition 38, an $8.4 billion bond initiative. The measure aims to fund immunology and immunotherapy research to combat diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's.
The $4.2 billion mystery of the unnamed research institute
Proposition 38 would authorize the state to issue bonds to fund early-stage immunology and immunotherapy studies. A central component of the measure is the allocation of $4.2 billion to a single, unnamed institution that must be affiliated with the University of California. As reported in the source, this entity was founded in 2024 by a group of biotech billionaires, including Dr. Gary Michelson, Meyer Luskin, Michael Milken, and Sean Parker.
Significant questions remain regarding the operational readiness of this proposed research hub. While the measure seeks to create a center for scientific discovery, state filings from May 2026 indicate the organization currently has zero employees and its physical location is merely a fenced-off construction site. This lack of existing infrastructure has led critics to question the legitimacy of the project before the first dollar is even spent.
Comparing a $4.2 billion windfall to the La Jolla Institute’s $84 million revenue
The sheer scale of the proposed funding represents a massive shift in the landscape of medical research. For context, the La Jolla Institute for Immunology reported approximately $84 million in revenue last year, including $52 million from federal grants and contracts. According to the report, the single award proposed under Proposition 38 is roughly 2% of the total revenue seen by such established leaders, highlighting the unprecedented concentration of wealth in one new entity.
While the measure intends to create a collaborative hub, the financial weight is heavily skewed toward the new institute. Prominent San Diego organizations, such as the Salk Institute, Scripps Research, and UC San Diego, would likely serve on an advisory committee to oversee the $4.2 billion, yet they would not receive the primary windfall. This creates a tension between supporting established scientific excellence and funding a new, unproven player.
The $38 million campaign fueled by Michelson and Luskin
The political push for Proposition 38 is heavily driven by private wealth and biotech interests. Campaign finance records reveal that of the more than $38 million raised by the "Yes on 38" campaign, the vast majority was contributed by Michelson and Luskin.. This includes a $14 million loan provided by Michelson to his own nonprofit organization that supports the measure.
Opposition leadders, such as Stanford University scholar Robert Kaplan, have characterized the measure as a "Trojan horse." Kaplan, a former NIH associate director, has expressed skepticism about whether the California Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy actually exists in any functional capacity. The opposition argues that the measure promises transformative breakthroughs while actually channeling billions to a newly created entity that lacks a scientific workforce.
A 20% discount for California residents on immunotherapy breakthroughs
Supporters of the bond measure emphasize the life-saving potential of immunotherapy, a field that uses the body's own immune system to fight disease. The "Yes on Prop 38" campaign points to the 145 FDA-approved immunotherapies currently available, as well as over 1,500 treatments in clinical development. Proponents like Gina Carithers, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, argue that sustained investment is required to prevent research from slowing down.
To mitigate concerns about public cost, the measure includes specific consumer protections and accountability mandates. It requires a 20% discount for California residents on any treatments developed through this research and limits administrative spending to no more than 2% of any award. Additionally, the measure mandates independent audits to ensure the $8.4 billion in borrowed funds is used as intended.
Comments 0