A STUDENT’S VIEW - California may ask voters to authorize billions for scientific research after federal funding cuts. Young Californians have a particular stake in what happens next.
California is considering a $7.5 billion bet on science.
If it succeeds, my generation could inherit the discoveries. If it fails to deliver, we could still inherit the debt.
That is what makes California's proposed science bond more complicated and more important than another political fight between Sacramento and Washington.
Senate Bill 895 would put a $7.5 billion bond before California voters in March 2028 to support scientific research and infrastructure. Its supporters argue that California needs greater stability after major disruptions to federal research funding.
That argument deserves serious consideration.
So does the price tag.
A bond is borrowed money. Taxpayers ultimately repay the principal and interest, potentially long after the politicians who approved the proposal have left office.
For younger Californians, that creates a simple standard: If we are going to inherit the debt, we should be able to measure what we received in return.
Research funding can support work involving cancer, dementia, infectious diseases, wildfire prevention, water supplies, and other challenges with enormous human and economic consequences. California's universities and research institutions are also an important part of the state's economy and its position as a center of scientific innovation.
Losing researchers, laboratories, and years of scientific work can carry costs of its own.
But acknowledging the value of science does not answer every question about how California should finance it.
Before voters are asked to authorize $7.5 billion, they deserve specific answers.
Who decides which researchers receive the money? How are conflicts of interest disclosed and prevented? How much will go directly toward research and facilities, and how much will be consumed by administration? Will taxpayers be able to see individual awards, recipients, progress reports, and results? What happens to projects that repeatedly miss their objectives?
And perhaps most importantly: What will success look like?
Those aren't arguments against scientific research. They are questions about governing billions of dollars responsibly.
California also has to confront the opportunity cost. Housing, schools, wildfire protection, water systems, transportation, and other priorities compete for limited public resources. Debt service does not disappear simply because the purpose of a bond is worthwhile.
Nor should California's science policy become merely an extension of partisan conflict with Washington.
Cancer is not Democratic or Republican. Neither is Alzheimer's disease. Wildfires don't distinguish between political parties, and scientific discoveries do not become more or less valuable depending on which administration funded them.
Federal research policy deserves scrutiny. California's response deserves the same.
The strongest case for state investment would therefore be one that can survive changes in political leadership: independent scientific review, transparent spending, enforceable conflict-of-interest protections, and publicly measurable results.
That matters especially to young Californians.
We are constantly told that science, engineering, medicine, and technology will define our future. Some students hearing that message today will become tomorrow's physicians, engineers, and researchers.
They need a scientific system stable enough to pursue work that can take years or decades.
Taxpayers need something, too: confidence that billions borrowed in their names will not disappear into bureaucracy, favoritism, or programs whose performance cannot be measured.
California does not have to choose between those principles.
It can value scientific discovery and demand financial accountability.
It can recognize the consequences of unstable federal funding and still question whether state borrowing is the best response.
And it can support researchers without giving any institution a blank check.
By March 2028, voters should be able to see exactly where the proposed money would go, what safeguards would govern it, what the total borrowing is expected to cost, and what outcomes Californians should expect in return.
Ultimately, the question is larger than Donald Trump, Gavin Newsom, or any single election.
It is whether California can protect world-class scientific research without abandoning world-class accountability.
My generation has an unusual stake in the answer.
We could inherit the discoveries.
We could become the scientists making them.
And we will inherit the debt.
Whatever California decides, young people deserve to inherit something else as well: evidence that when government borrowed billions in the name of our future, it treated both the science and the taxpayers financing it with the seriousness they deserved.
(Shoshannah Kalaydjian is a young Jewish student who writes about education, identity, and the challenges facing the next generation. Growing up in today’s climate, she has witnessed firsthand how rising antisemitism affects young people in classrooms and on college campuses. She is committed to sharing the perspectives of Jewish youth, amplifying student voices, and encouraging leaders to create safer, more inclusive environments for all students.)
