TL;DR
Get workout gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
California Proposition 38 would authorize up to $8.4 billion in bonds for disease research, with half of the funding reserved for a single qualifying institute. The California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, the only California institute identified as meeting the measure’s criteria, had three employees as of September, despite a plan to hire about 51 by the previous year. The measure’s passage, the institute’s readiness and the eventual funding decision remain unresolved.
The California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy had three employees as of September, according to comments by a UCLA official, although an agreement with UCLA laid out a plan to hire about 51 by the previous year. The staffing gap matters because the institute is the only California organization identified as currently meeting criteria to receive $4.2 billion — half the bond funding proposed by Proposition 38 if voters approve it in November.
Proposition 38 would authorize up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research into diseases and treatments involving the immune system, with an emphasis on Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language reserves half the money for a single, unnamed research institute that meets specific criteria. Bonds are debt that the state must repay; the measure’s proposed funding is not a grant already awarded to the institute.
CalMatters reported that public records and statements point to the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, or CIII, as the only California institute currently meeting the criteria. The institute’s principal funder, billionaire physician Gary K. Michelson, wrote the measure and is the largest donor to its campaign, according to the report. The campaign has declined to say whether the measure was written specifically for CIII.
The staffing targets appear in a five-year business plan included in a formal affiliation agreement signed by UCLA and the institute in August 2024. The plan called for approximately 51 hires between summer 2024 and summer 2025, including six executives, five research lab leaders and about 40 other workers. It projected roughly 90 additional hires between 2025 and 2027. At a September 16 UC Regents meeting, UCLA Health CEO and Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences John Mazziotta said the institute had hired a chief operating officer, a general counsel and a scientific adviser, and was searching for a director.
The same plan projected $25 million in personnel costs across fiscal years 2024-25 and 2025-26, $45 million in total operating expenses over that period, and a further $167 million in capital expenses. Mazziotta told the regents the institute had spent a total of $20 million so far on operating expenses, hires and other costs. The figures describe different categories and time frames; the report does not establish that the institute had met each budget projection.
A $4.2 Billion Readiness Test
The staffing figures raise a practical question for voters: could the proposed recipient manage and deploy billions in public bond proceeds if the measure passes? The hiring plan, spending projections and the limited number of employees reported by Mazziotta offer benchmarks for evaluating the institute’s preparations, but they do not by themselves establish whether it is capable of carrying out the research or managing the funds.
The issue also reaches beyond one organization. Proposition 38’s critics argue the measure favors a single institute instead of supporting established research teams at California universities, hospitals and nonprofit labs. Supporters say state funding could help sustain research as federal science grants face potential cuts. The debate is therefore about both research funding priorities and the safeguards for allocating taxpayer-backed bond money.
If approved, the bonds would create a long-term repayment obligation for the state. The measure’s allocation rules, the institute’s readiness and the public agency’s review would shape how much funding is actually awarded and when research could begin.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Institute Became Eligible
The proposed allocation is tied to specific eligibility criteria in the ballot language. Previous reporting by CalMatters found that CIII was the only California institute that currently met them. At a September press conference, Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson Robin Swanson said CIII was “very likely” to qualify for half the funds under the current criteria, while stressing that eligibility is not the same as an award.
CIII is a founding tenant at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles and is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, according to the institute. The facility is not scheduled to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to an agenda item for the September UC Regents meeting. The institute also has a formal UCLA affiliation agreement, which requires it to pay UCLA 7.5% of net revenue from drugs and technologies developed by its staff.
The institute told CalMatters it had signed the UCLA agreement and cleared a state environmental review for its planned facility. Its spokesperson did not answer the outlet’s questions about why hiring was below the plan’s projected level, instead pointing to the institute’s promise and those milestones. The Yes campaign has said the institute would not receive bond money unless it is ready to begin work.
“The institute had hired a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and was well into the search for a director.”
— John Mazziotta, UCLA Health CEO and vice chancellor for health sciences, speaking at a September 16 UC Regents meeting
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Staffing and Award Questions
It is not clear why the institute had hired three people when the plan called for approximately 51 by summer 2025, or how many additional employees it has since hired. The institute’s written response to CalMatters did not address the staffing gap. The available report also does not establish what work the current staff are performing or whether the institute can begin research before its facility is completed.
Proposition 38 has not yet been decided, and the $4.2 billion is a proposed allocation, not confirmed funding. Even if voters approve the measure, CIII’s eligibility would not automatically guarantee an award: the California Department of Public Health would make the funding decision. The schedule, conditions and oversight for any award are not fully detailed in the source material.
The campaign declined to provide an interview with Michelson, and he also declined to comment, according to CalMatters. The report does not establish whether other institutes could qualify in the future, or what would happen to the reserved share if CIII is found unready or does not qualify.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Vote, Review and Facility Timeline
California voters are scheduled to decide Proposition 38 in November. If it passes, the California Department of Public Health would determine whether a qualifying institute is ready and whether to award it the proposed share. The campaign has said the institute must be ready to begin work, but the specific review timeline and criteria for that readiness decision are not detailed in the report.
The institute’s hiring and spending progress, along with construction at the UCLA research park, are likely to remain points of scrutiny as the ballot decision approaches and any later funding review proceeds. The park is not expected to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the UC Regents agenda item. Whether research or other work could start before then, and how the institute’s current staffing would change, remain open questions.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What would Proposition 38 fund?
The measure would authorize up to $8.4 billion in bonds for research on diseases and treatments involving the immune system, with an emphasis on Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and heart disease. Half the proposed bond funding would be reserved for one institute that meets the ballot measure’s criteria.
Has the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy been awarded $4.2 billion?
No. The $4.2 billion is a proposed allocation if voters approve Proposition 38 and the institute qualifies and is approved by the California Department of Public Health. No award is confirmed in the report.
Why is the institute’s staffing level being questioned?
A UCLA agreement’s five-year plan called for approximately 51 employees by summer 2025. At a September 2026 UC Regents meeting, UCLA official John Mazziotta said the institute had three employees and was searching for a director. The institute did not explain the gap in its response to CalMatters.
Who would decide whether the institute receives the money?
The California Department of Public Health would make the final funding decision, according to the Yes on Prop. 38 campaign. The campaign has said the institute must be ready to begin work to receive bond money.
When will the institute’s research facility be completed?
The UCLA research park where the institute is a founding tenant is not scheduled to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to an agenda item for the September UC Regents meeting. The source does not say whether research could begin before the facility is complete.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
