Body
Researchers from UC Berkeley and other California universities on Wednesday urged state lawmakers in Sacramento to back a $23 billion bond measure aimed at insulating science and health research from federal funding disruptions, as scientists described growing uncertainty about the future of early-career work.
The lobbying effort took shape around a pop-up science fair where graduate students, postdocs and researchers presented posters and discussed their projects with legislators and aides. Among them was Scarlet Sands-Bliss, a UC Berkeley Ph.D. student who described how her research on extreme-heat preparedness for a rural community must be framed in ways that avoid triggering federal scrutiny.
Sands-Bliss said she initially saw herself as a scientist whose work did not require public advocacy, but she now considers political engagement part of protecting her field. “As a young person working in climate, everything feels really urgent,” she said, describing the urgency through the lens of heat and wildfire impacts she sees in Lake County, where she drives from her schedule in the Bay Area to continue her research.
She said some grant language and project descriptions have been adjusted during the current period of federal grant upheaval, including removing the word “climate” from some materials. She also described how extreme weather affects vulnerable residents, citing a senior center staff member who she said has had heatstroke multiple times and now cannot spend more than about 15 minutes in the sun.
The legislation she and other researchers support is authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener. It would put the bond measure before voters in November and, if approved, establish a California Foundation for Science and Health Research to dole out grants for work ranging from health and agriculture to earthquake and wildfire safety, with priority given to ongoing studies that researchers say have had funding cut by the federal government.
Wiener, speaking as he circulated among posters at the fair, said he grew frustrated after what he described as attacks on university research and federal science agencies. “It’s like they’re Neanderthals who want to bring us back to the Middle Ages, where we’re un-curing diseases,” Wiener said, adding that he first floated the idea for a state science fund early last year after becoming “very upset and angry.”
In a statement about Wiener’s proposal, UC President James Milliken said reductions in federal funding were already disrupting UC research, which he said supports jobs and medical innovation. Scientists at the fair described how they have tried to adapt to changing federal oversight, including efforts to adjust grant applications to reduce the chance of federal challenges.
Supporters of the bond measure said the disruptions extend beyond climate-linked work. They pointed to what researchers said were paused or canceled federal grants in California for projects involving wildfire smoke and pregnancy outcomes, new antibiotics for tuberculosis, infertility research and ways to help small farmers market their produce.
Researchers also described specific cases of instability and reinstatement. Gabriel Edwards, a UCLA-affiliated scientist, described how a project related to HIV transmission among formerly incarcerated people appeared to be stable but faced a longer period of disruption after a funding stream tied to an institute supporting disparities was revoked, forcing changes to study planning during months when grant work was uncertain.
At the same fair, Christopher Rae, a UC Berkeley postdoctoral researcher, described how federal action affected his lab’s ability to hire. Rae said the federal government temporarily revoked one of his lab’s three major research grants in 2025, and that his lab froze hiring for new graduate students and postdocs because of concerns that other grants could be paused, a decision he said would likely affect research output years later.
The science bond proposal could also face competition for attention among voters because California lawmakers have floated other statewide bonds and taxes. John Aubrey Douglass, a senior fellow at UC’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, said voter enthusiasm for a science bond might depend in part on how Californians are faring economically and whether a separate tax on billionaires also makes the ballot.
Douglass also highlighted another ballot measure idea backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which he said would impose a one-time 5% tax on Californians worth more than $1 billion to offset projected gaps in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. He noted lawmakers have also discussed a $10 billion bond to fund affordable housing construction and assistance for homebuyers and renters.
Wiener’s measure would have to first win approval from two-thirds of California legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom before a majority of voters would approve it. The bill has attracted at least some Republican support, with two GOP lawmakers listed as co-authors, including Assemblymember Josh Hoover, who said he backed the bill after seeing through a family member’s dementia the difference that innovations in medicine can make.
Hoover said he has heard support for research among some Republicans in Washington but that they sometimes raise concerns about fraud and waste and that federal politics can be more complicated than what lawmakers can control at the state level. The bill’s backers argue that state funding could allow labs to plan longer timelines for experiments that can take years, including antibiotic development and other areas they said federal programs are leaving exposed.
UC Berkeley scientists also said the proposed foundation would help sustain research capacity in areas where they said funding uncertainty could push people to work abroad. They argued that a stable state backstop could keep investigators in California and protect the pipeline of early-career scientists while the federal government’s research priorities remain in flux.