The last bill of California's 2025–26 legislative session was a question for voters. SB 895 (Wiener), signed on September 30, 2026, places a $7.5 billion science and health research bond on the March 2028 ballot and creates the California Foundation for Science and Health Research to award grants, loans and contracts for research and development (Governor's office). Nothing has been borrowed and nothing has been appropriated. Voters will decide in seventeen months whether the foundation receives its money.
What the measure covers
Primary recordThe fields named by the Governor's office include biomedical science, public health, disease prevention and behavioral health, along with climate change, wildfire prevention, extreme weather, ocean science, agriculture and water.
ReportedThe proposal began in January 2026 as a $23 billion measure intended for the November 2026 ballot. It was cut to $12 billion, then to $5 billion, before lawmakers settled on $7.5 billion, of which $1 billion would go to the University of California and California State University for research facilities (Archyde). Lawmakers did not approve it in time for the November 2026 ballot, which is why it will appear in March 2028 (Los Angeles Times via Hanford Sentinel). Its sponsors describe it as a response to federal research-grant cancellations and as a state counterpart to the National Institutes of Health.
California has done this before
In 2004, voters created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine with a $3 billion bond (Proposition 71), and in 2020 they added $5.5 billion (Proposition 14). Those measures funded one field of research. SB 895 would spread a larger sum across many fields, from cancer and neurodegenerative disease to wildfire and water supply. The stem-cell institute's history offers a template for the questions voters should ask, because its governance and conflict-of-interest rules drew sustained scrutiny over two decades.
What voters will need to learn from the measure itself
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Who governs the foundation, and who appoints them? | Determines how independent it is from the Legislature and the Governor |
| How are grant applications reviewed? | Peer review is what separates a research agency from an appropriations channel |
| What conflict-of-interest rules bind reviewers and board members? | The most persistent criticism of California's stem-cell agency |
| How is the $7.5 billion divided among fields? | Health research may receive a minority share |
| Who owns the inventions, and does the state share in revenue? | A recurring issue for publicly funded research |
| What will the debt cost? | The Legislative Analyst's ballot analysis will estimate principal and interest from the General Fund |
KPS Gill, MD will answer each of these from the measure's text and the Legislative Analyst's analysis as the March 2028 election approaches.
The arguments, stated fairly
Supporters argue that a state research fund protects California's research capacity, jobs and scientific workforce at a time of federal cuts, and that research in medicine and public health produces returns that justify long-term borrowing. Those who oppose new general-obligation debt argue that bond measures commit future budgets to decades of interest payments, and that basic research funding is primarily a federal responsibility. KPS Gill, MD takes no position on the measure.
The Central Valley question
AnalysisWhether UC Merced, Fresno State, UCSF Fresno or Valley health systems would benefit depends on how the measure allocates money and who is eligible to apply. A research engine that funds only the state's largest institutions would widen, not narrow, the gap in research capacity between coastal California and the San Joaquin Valley. That is the first question this site will put to the measure's text.