San Diego, CA
University of California pushes for $12B scientific research bond to counter federal cuts
This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.
David Boyer is stuck in a waiting game. For more than 18 months, silence from the National Institutes of Health on a crucial grant decision has thrown his research developing treatments for Alzheimer’s disease into uncertain territory.
His application received a favorable impact score, the main metric used for NIH funding decisions, so the postdoctoral scholar at UCLA figured he would hear good news by spring of 2025. Instead, he has heard nothing.
Without the funding, he has less to spend on his experiments, which require thousands of dollars worth of materials, including advanced microscopes. In a worst-case scenario, it’s possible he could lose his job if the grant doesn’t come through.
“It’s really up in the air whether I would be able to continue getting funded,” said Boyer, who is part of UCLA’s Eisenberg Lab.
Boyer is not alone. Federal funding for scientific research, from agencies such as NIH and the National Science Foundation, has been upended under the Trump administration, with fewer grants being awarded and some existing grants being canceled altogether. Even researchers with stable funding worry that their grants could get suspended or will not be renewed.
But now, Boyer and other researchers at California universities have some hope that they could get a reprieve — from California voters.
The University of California is pushing to get a $12 billion state bond on the November ballot that would fund scientific research projects at California universities, research institutes and private companies. In addition to UC and California State University campuses, private universities such as Stanford and the University of Southern California would also be eligible for the bond money.
For the bond to appear on the ballot, the state Legislature first needs to approve Senate Bill 895. The bill’s sponsors include UC and UAW 4811, the union representing 48,000 academic workers at UC, including thousands of researchers.
The bill was approved last week by the Senate and now heads to the Assembly. It must be passed and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom by June 25 to make the ballot.
“As the federal government cuts and destroys scientific funding, as it creates long-term instability and uncertainty, as science has now become a political football in this country, let’s make sure that California retains and expands our leadership in scientific research,” state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said on the Senate floor last week just before the vote. Wiener is one of the authors of the bill.
If passed and approved by voters, the measure would create the California Foundation for Science and Health Research, which would award the grants using “an open, competitive, scientific peer review process,” according to the bill.
The bond would not be a cure-all for research funding if federal spending continues to dwindle. UC alone gets nearly $6 billion annually in federal support for research.
“There is nobody else who can substitute for research funding on the scale the federal government supplies,” said Simon Atkinson, vice chancellor for research at UC Davis.
Still, Atkinson and other proponents of the bond agree that it would benefit researchers in California not to rely so much on the federal government, especially under the Trump administration, which proposed a $5 billion cut to NIH for 2027. Last week, The New York Times reported that NSF had slowed funding to Harvard and other institutions targeted by the White House, though the impact on California campuses is unclear.
Having another potential funding source would be welcome news to Ximena Anleu Gil, a plant biologist at UC Davis who researches how to breed more plants in environmentally friendly ways.
There is one year remaining on the grant that funds Gil’s position in UC Davis’ Meyers Lab. The prospect of not having the funding renewed is stressful for Gil, who is the main provider for her family, which includes her partner and 7-month-old daughter.
“I’m very scared of what could happen. If I’m laid off, we’re screwed,” Gil said. “But having another source of potential funding, that would already feel like a big relief.”
If voters approve the bond, the legislation requires that priority be given to replacing funding slashed by the federal government.
In California, 782 grants have been terminated by the federal government since January 2025, according to the website Grant Witness, a project tracking terminations under the Trump administration.
Most of those grants have been restored under court orders, but dozens remain canceled, including one at UC San Francisco’s Center for AIDS Research that paid for training for undergraduate students.
Under that grant, students from nearby Hispanic-Serving Institutions, including San Francisco State University, would spend the summer at UCSF doing HIV research. At the end of the summer, the center would hold a symposium where undergraduates present their findings.
The idea was to expose those students to the field and get them interested in HIV research, said Monica Gandhi, director of the center.
“There are fewer and fewer people going into infectious disease research at a time when infectious diseases are all over,” Gandhi said. “It really just got them excited, and we thought it would help grow our biomedical research workforce in a really important topic.”
If California’s bond goes through, Gandhi said she expects the center would immediately apply for a grant to restart that program.
Federal funding remains intact for the rest of the AIDS research center, which organizes all HIV research across UCSF. But it’s not clear how long that will be the case. Gandhi said the center is waiting for a formal notice from NIH to apply for a grant renewal, which she said normally would have come by now.
“There are all these little ways they are making it harder to get funding,” she said. “Having a California-based initiative that isn’t political and will have the grants be judged on their scientific merit would be amazing. And I think it will go a long way.”
EdSource is California’s largest independent newsroom focused on education.
San Diego, CA
We mapped San Diego County’s voter registration, turnout and governor election results from the June primary
Voter engagement was slightly higher in the June primary election than in recent years’ primaries, with more San Diego County voters registering and casting a ballot, data from the County Registrar of Voters show.
Meanwhile the county’s election results, which still have yet to be certified, show where support for each of the most popular governor candidates was strongest.
Republican Steve Hilton, the single most popular candidate in the county, won more votes than any of his competitors in wide swaths of East and North County, and in many Democratic-leaning neighborhoods including La Jolla and Clairemont. Democratic establishment candidate Xavier Becerra was solid in South County, Escondido and San Marcos, while fellow-party and more progressive candidate Tom Steyer captured many parts of San Diego city proper.
But primary votes are still being counted in Riverside County for what many agree will be the biggest competitive race involving San Diego this November: the 48th Congressional district, a race that will help decide which party controls the House.
The county has finished counting all valid ballots from the June primary, but there are 5,600 mail ballots that need to be cured, meaning they have a missing or mismatched signature. That number is equivalent to less than 0.6% of total ballots.
The county is giving those voters a chance to correct their ballot signatures. After unresolved ballots are cured and counted, the county registrar says it will certify election results by the evening of July 2.
More voters registered
Voter registration was up this year from the last primary, data from the county registrar show. Two million San Diego County residents registered to vote, compared to 1.9 million in 2024.
Political party makeup in the county hasn’t changed much since two years ago.
Democrats still dominate the county overall, but their numbers declined slightly from 2024. About 40.5% of the county’s registered voters filed as Democrats for this primary, down from 41.4% in 2024.
Meanwhile 27.4% filed as Republicans, about the same as in 2024.
A quarter of voters declined to declare a party preference, which is up by half a percentage point from 2024.
San Diego County’s political makeup falls in line with national trends, said Carl Luna, director of the Institute for Civil Engagement at University of San Diego. Republicans dominate the rural and exurban communities of East and North County, while Democrats dominate urban neighborhoods and areas with more young people.
Higher, but uneven turnout
This year’s gubernatorial primary drew higher voter participation than recent similar elections.
About 42% of county registered voters cast a ballot, which is higher than the county’s turnout in each of the past three non-presidential primary elections.
Turnout is also up significantly from the presidential primary two years ago, when it was only about 37%.
Geographic disparities remain. Many of the county’s lowest turnout rates were in the urban cores of El Cajon, Escondido, Vista and San Marcos, as well as precincts in San Ysidro, City Heights, Southeast San Diego, National City, Nestor and western and southern Chula Vista. Precincts in those communities had turnout rates below 30%, and in some cases below 20%.
Those low turnout rates are largely to the Democrats’ disadvantage, as all of those areas lean Democratic.
Turnout tends to correlate with age, education levels and socioeconomic status, said Brian Adams, political science professor at San Diego State.
Primary elections consistently see far lower turnout than general elections. In the 2024 general election, county voter turnout was 76%.
“When you get lower voter-turnout elections, you get biases in who’s voting and who’s not voting. Historically that usually favored Republicans,” Adams said.
The real test that will decide the winners of competitive races in November is which party can turn out more voters, he said.
“Most voters already made up their mind which party they’re supporting. The actual number of persuadable voters is very small. Because of that, what really matters is turnout,” Adams said.
Democratic votes split for governor
In a candidate field that saw far more competition for Democrats than Republicans, GOP candidate Hilton was the single most popular governor candidate in the county, capturing about 30% of the vote.
Democratic votes were split between former Attorney General Becerra, who captured the second most votes in the county with 27%, and billionaire Steyer, who captured the third most at 21%.
Unlike Becerra and Steyer, Hilton didn’t suffer as much from a split vote with Republican Chad Bianco, who got 8% of the county total.
San Diego County favored Hilton more than California as a whole, which gave Hilton about 25% of the vote. San Diego County voters were also less likely than voters statewide to support Steyer or Bianco.
Hilton captured more votes than any other candidate in Republican-dominated areas of the county — the exurbs and rural areas of East County and North County. But he also did well in many parts that lean Democratic, including La Jolla, Point Loma, Del Mar Heights, Scripps Ranch, eastern Chula Vista and parts of Clairemont.
That’s largely because the Democratic vote was split between Becerra and Steyer. It may also be because voters who turn out for primaries have tended to skew more conservative than general elections, Adams said.
“Different people may be voting in November, so we’ll have to see how that plays out,” he said. “When you get lower voter-turnout elections, you get biases in who’s voting and who’s not voting.”
Steyer, the more progressive Democrat, captured the plurality of votes in several parts of San Diego city.
But Becerra remained the clear Democratic favorite in South County, in the urban cores of Escondido and San Marcos, as well as most of Vista and Oceanside. Luna said that reflects Latino support as well as support for a more traditional establishment candidate.
With Republicans Hilton and Bianco combining to capture only 35% of the vote statewide in the primary, Luna and Adams are expecting Becerra to be ushered in easily. The biggest competition out of San Diego County, they said, will be the 48th Congressional district race.
Thanks to last year’s redistricting, the historically Republican seat — which sits partly in Riverside County — is now competitive between the two big political parties.
Republican county Supervisor Jim Desmond will face off with San Diego Councilmember Marni Von Wilpert, a Democrat, for the seat.
In the primary, Desmond won 42% of the vote within San Diego County, while Von Wilpert captured 22% in a field crowded with Democrats. The one other Republican candidate in the primary, Kevin O’Neil, got 3%.
The fate of the seat could help determine party control of the House. “The only significant race is the 48th,” Luna said.
Watch CBS News
-
Technology2 minutes agoChina’s Z.ai claims it can match Mythos on cybersecurity
-
World7 minutes agoShipping giant warns Strait of Hormuz chaos is ‘new normal’ as Tehran shifts 4M barrels
-
Politics14 minutes agoJacob Frey praises Somali community as Minnesota faces renewed scrutiny over fraud investigations
-
Sports22 minutes agoJ.T. Poston posts a 12 on a single hole at Travelers Championship in stunning meltdown
-
Technology29 minutes agoMidjourney’s wild body scanner scans you in water
-
Business32 minutes agoWhy tech stocks are getting hammered
-
Entertainment37 minutes agoSigh. Again? ‘Love Island USA’ confirms another contestant fired over apparent use of racial slur
-
Politics47 minutes agoCommentary: This California bill is so bad it has me agreeing with a Trump Republican
