This article was initially published by EdSource. Subscribe to their daily newsletter.
David Boyer finds himself in a prolonged waiting period. For over 18 months, the lack of communication from the National Institutes of Health regarding a vital grant decision has cast uncertainty over his research focused on developing Alzheimer’s disease treatments.
His application received a positive impact score, the primary metric used by NIH for funding decisions, leading the postdoctoral scholar at UCLA to believe he would receive good news by spring 2025. Instead, he has been left in the dark.
Lacking this funding means he has limited resources for his experiments, which require thousands of dollars in materials, including high-end microscopes. In a worst-case scenario, he could even risk losing his job if the grant does not materialize.
“It’s really unclear whether I will continue to receive funding,” said Boyer, who is affiliated with UCLA’s Eisenberg Lab.
Boyer is not alone in this struggle. Federal funding for scientific research from agencies like NIH and the National Science Foundation has been disrupted under the Trump administration, resulting in fewer grants and the cancellation of some existing ones. Even researchers with reliable funding are concerned that their grants may be suspended or not renewed.
However, Boyer and fellow researchers at California universities now have a glimmer of hope that relief could come from California voters.
The University of California is advocating for a $12 billion state bond to be placed on the November ballot, aimed at financing scientific research projects at California universities, research institutes, and private companies. This funding would be available not just for UC and California State University campuses, but also for private institutions like Stanford and the University of Southern California.
To get the bond on the ballot, the state Legislature must first pass Senate Bill 895. Advocates for the bill include UC and UAW 4811, which represents 48,000 academic workers at UC, including thousands of researchers.
Last week, the Senate approved the bill, which has now moved to the Assembly. It must be approved and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom by June 25 to be included on the ballot.
“As the federal government cuts and undermines scientific funding, creating long-term instability and uncertainty, and as science has become a political issue in our country, let’s ensure that California maintains and expands our leadership in scientific research,” remarked state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, on the Senate floor prior to the vote. Wiener is a co-author of the bill.
If the measure passes and is approved by voters, it will establish the California Foundation for Science and Health Research, which will distribute grants based on “an open, competitive, scientific peer review process,” as detailed in the bill.
While this bond would be beneficial, it cannot fully replace the substantial research funding provided by federal sources if those continue to decline. UC alone receives nearly $6 billion a year in federal research support.
“There is no feasible substitute for research funding at the level provided by the federal government,” stated Simon Atkinson, vice chancellor for research at UC Davis.
Nonetheless, Atkinson and other supporters of the bond concur that it would help researchers in California lessen their dependence on the federal government, especially given the Trump administration’s proposal for a $5 billion cut to NIH for 2027. Recently, The New York Times reported that NSF had reduced funding to institutions like Harvard that have been targeted by the White House, though the effects on California campuses are still uncertain.
The potential for another funding source brings relief to Ximena Anleu Gil, a plant biologist at UC Davis focused on environmentally sustainable plant breeding.
She has only one year left on the grant that funds her position in UC Davis’ Meyers Lab. The possibility of not having her funding renewed is worrying for Gil, who is the sole provider for her family, which includes her partner and their 7-month-old daughter.
“I’m genuinely anxious about the outcome. If I get laid off, it would be catastrophic for us,” Gil expressed. “However, having access to another funding source would greatly alleviate that stress.”
If voters approve the bond, legislation stipulates that priority will be given to replacing federal funding that has been cut.
In California, 782 grants have been terminated by the federal government since January 2025, as reported by the project Grant Witness, which tracks such terminations under the Trump administration.
While court orders have restored many of these grants, several remain canceled, including one at UC San Francisco’s Center for AIDS Research that funded training for undergraduate students.
Under that grant, students from local Hispanic-Serving Institutions, including San Francisco State University, would spend their summer at UCSF conducting HIV research. At the end of their summer experience, the center would host a symposium for the students to present their findings.
The goal was to ignite interest in the field among these students and encourage them to pursue HIV research, noted Monica Gandhi, the center’s director.
“Fewer and fewer people are entering infectious disease research at a moment when infectious diseases are rampant,” Gandhi commented. “We believed that this program would generate excitement and help cultivate our biomedical research workforce in a crucial area.”
Should California’s bond pass, Gandhi anticipates that the center would promptly seek a grant to restart that initiative.
Federal funding continues for other programs within the AIDS research center, which coordinates all HIV research at UCSF. Yet, the duration of that stability remains uncertain. Gandhi indicated that they are awaiting a formal notification from NIH regarding grant renewal, which typically would have been received by now.
“There are numerous subtle ways they are complicating the funding process,” she remarked. “Establishing a California-based initiative that is devoid of political influence, where grants are evaluated based on scientific merit, would be remarkable. I believe it would have a significant impact.”
EdSource stands as California’s largest independent newsroom dedicated to education.
