California is at the center of the fight against Parkinson’s
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
What will it take to cure Parkinson’s disease? It’s one of the first questions I asked when I was diagnosed in 1991, and one that patients and families still ask today. A lot has changed in those three decades, and thanks to the tireless efforts of a global community of scientists, patients and advocates, we’re closer to a cure than we’ve ever been. But it’s no secret that finishing the job will take everything we’ve got — and the science continues to outpace the money.
Right now, Californians have a massive opportunity to change things for the better. Senate Bill 895, introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener, would create the California Foundation for Science and Health Research, funded through a voter-approved multibillion-dollar bond. The proposed foundation would aim to take on some of our most pressing challenges, from diseases like Parkinson’s and cancer to climate change and wildfires.
In Parkinson’s, cells that produce dopamine gradually stop doing their job. The functions our bodies rely on — including movement, mood and cognition — break down, worsening over time. But biology doesn’t have to be destiny. Research is already changing what’s possible for people with Parkinson’s, and California is proving it.
At UC San Francisco, researchers have developed a new generation of adaptive deep brain stimulation — technology that reads brain signals in real time and adjusts treatment automatically. At UC San Diego, scientists have reprogrammed brain cells to replace the dopamine-producing neurons Parkinson’s destroys, reversing symptoms in early pre-clinical models.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation is proud to have helped fund both efforts, but this is just a fraction of what’s within reach — and we can’t get there on our own. No single organization can. What we need is public investment to match the scale of the enormous opportunity before us. That’s what will take us further and faster than ever.
More than 1.2 million people in the U.S. — including nearly 135,000 Californians — live with Parkinson’s and related conditions today. Parkinson’s is the world’s fastest growing neurological disease, and in 2024 alone, the disease cost patients, families and taxpayers across the country a stunning $82 billion. That includes things you’d expect, like doctor’s visits and medications. It also includes the quieter, more insidious costs: premature retirements, college funds siphoned away, spouses enlisted as full-time unpaid caregivers.
Whether you live with Parkinson’s or not, you’re paying for it. For some of us, there’s no opting out. But for California taxpayers, SB 895 gives you a chance to put your money to better use — directing it toward cures instead of costs to ease the burden on all of us.
There has never been a better moment to go all in on Parkinson’s research. Nearly two dozen new treatments have been approved in the last decade. More than 175 are currently in clinical development, half of which aim to slow or entirely stop the disease — not just treat its symptoms — something we’ve never been able to do before. In 2023, scientists validated the first test that can detect Parkinson’s biology in living humans, even years before outward symptoms emerge. That breakthrough is already changing how we diagnose and treat the disease — and how we might soon prevent it altogether.
Behind this momentum are tens of thousands of people — patients who roll up their sleeves and join clinical trials, scientists who turn dead-ends into detours, fundraisers who power research and advocates who help policymakers understand what’s at stake. I’m endlessly grateful for this community — one that chooses, every day, to push against the limits of what we know. I’ve seen them chip away at some of the most complex questions in brain science and say, “We can do more.” Again and again, they do.
Our biggest roadblock isn’t a lack of talent or promising ideas. We’re not short on ingenuity or determination. What we need is increased public investment to scale those ideas, getting research dollars into the hands of brilliant people who can kick down every door until we find the breakthroughs we’re looking for.
I’ve realized for a long time that cures won’t fall from the sky. We have to climb up and get them. California’s world-class universities, research hospitals and biotech industry have created an ecosystem where discovery accelerates and compounds. It’s a place where entrepreneurial thinking meets scientific rigor — where smart, ambitious people come together to solve our toughest problems.
Senate Bill 895 is a bet on California’s ability to do what it does best, at exactly the moment when science is set to sprint.
To the California Senate: Thank you for passing this bill. Your leadership and commitment to science are moving us closer to cures. To the California Assembly: I urge you to do the same. And to Californians: Call your Assemblymembers and Gov. Gavin Newsom — let them know why this bill matters to you. If it reaches the ballot in November, vote for it.
Millions of people and families affected by disease in California and across the country are counting on us to get this right. The science is ready. How fast it can go is up to us.
Michael J. Fox is an actor, an author and the founder of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease at age 29.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The column argues that Parkinson’s disease is at an inflection point scientifically, with advances in areas such as brain circuitry, genetics and biomarkers bringing the field closer to true disease‑modifying therapies than ever before, yet funding has not kept pace with the scientific opportunity.[1]
It contends that California is uniquely positioned to accelerate a cure because of its dense network of research universities, hospitals and biotech companies, describing the state as an ecosystem where entrepreneurial culture and scientific rigor combine to speed discovery.
The piece highlights specific California-based breakthroughs as evidence that transformative progress is already underway, including adaptive deep brain stimulation at UC San Francisco that responds to brain signals in real time and experimental cell-reprogramming approaches at UC San Diego aimed at replacing dopamine-producing neurons destroyed in Parkinson’s.
It maintains that private philanthropy and nonprofit funders — including the Michael J. Fox Foundation, which focuses its grants on high-impact, translational Parkinson’s research — have helped drive many of these advances but cannot, on their own, fund the full range of promising projects needed to reach cures.[1][2]
The article frames Senate Bill 895, which would create a California Foundation for Science and Health Research financed through a multibillion-dollar state bond, as the necessary public counterpart to private efforts, arguing that large-scale, sustained public investment is the only way to match the scale of today’s scientific opportunities.
It emphasizes the human and economic burden of Parkinson’s — citing more than a million people living with the disease nationwide and substantial yearly costs borne by patients, families and taxpayers — and argues that investing in research now can reduce long-term healthcare spending and the hidden costs of disability, lost income and unpaid caregiving.
The column portrays Parkinson’s research as a broader public good, asserting that even residents who do not have the disease are already paying for its consequences and that SB 895 would allow Californians to “put their money to better use” by shifting resources from downstream costs to upstream cures.
It stresses that the main barrier to progress is not a shortage of ideas, talent or determination, but an underinvestment of public dollars into promising projects that could be scaled and tested more rapidly if adequately funded.[1]
The piece presents SB 895 as a time-sensitive opportunity, arguing that science is “ready to sprint” — pointing to a surge in new therapies in development and the recent validation of a test that can detect Parkinson’s biology in living people years before symptoms — and that delaying investment risks squandering this momentum.
It closes with an explicit call to action, thanking the California Senate for passing the bill, urging the Assembly to advance it, and encouraging voters to press elected officials and ultimately support the measure at the ballot box, framing the decision as a collective responsibility to millions of families affected by serious diseases.
Different views on the topic
In debates over large state science and health research bonds in California, fiscal watchdogs and taxpayer groups have often argued that issuing multibillion-dollar bonds imposes long-term debt and interest costs on future budgets, potentially crowding out funding for schools, infrastructure and existing healthcare services; these critics tend to favor paying for research through the regular budget process rather than borrowing over decades.
Some health policy analysts caution that dedicating large, voter-approved funding streams to specific research institutions or disease areas can limit flexibility, making it harder for legislators to respond to emerging public health needs or to shift money if certain scientific avenues prove less promising than expected.
Critics of prior California research bond initiatives have warned that state-run research agencies can become insulated and difficult to oversee, raising concerns about governance, potential conflicts of interest in grantmaking, and the risk of political or industry influence on scientific priorities rather than decisions being driven purely by peer-reviewed evidence.
A number of commentators have questioned whether states should attempt to build their own parallel research funding structures when federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and large disease-focused nonprofits already invest heavily in biomedical science, arguing that states might achieve more impact by strengthening healthcare delivery, prevention and support services rather than underwriting early-stage discovery.
Some economists and health technology assessment experts have raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of heavily funding cutting-edge interventions such as brain implants or cell-based therapies, noting that these treatments can be extremely expensive and may benefit relatively small numbers of patients compared with broader investments in primary care, rehabilitation, mental health services or caregiver support.
Disability and patient-rights advocates have, in various contexts, expressed unease with policy narratives that place “cure” at the center of investment decisions, arguing that such narratives can unintentionally downplay the immediate needs of people already living with chronic conditions and can divert attention from policies that improve accessibility, long-term care, employment protections and quality of life.
Some public health scholars argue that a strong focus on high-tech biomedical solutions risks overshadowing environmental, occupational and lifestyle factors that may contribute to neurodegenerative diseases, suggesting that more resources should also be directed to prevention research, toxin regulation and population-level interventions rather than primarily to laboratory and clinical trials.
There are also concerns from advocates for other diseases and conditions that large, disease-adjacent bond measures — even when framed broadly around science and health — can inadvertently privilege research areas with high-profile champions and existing philanthropic networks, potentially widening disparities in attention and funding for less visible but equally burdensome illnesses.
Finally, skeptics of ambitious research timelines point to past experiences in which bold promises about rapid cures did not materialize as quickly as voters were led to expect, arguing that public messaging around bonds should be more cautious about what scientific investment can guarantee and on what timeframe, to avoid eroding trust if breakthroughs take longer than anticipated.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It turns out you can burn down a neighborhood and not destroy a community. We’ve seen evidence of this all across L.A. and so we will head back to one neighborhood that’s a good example of that bond: West Poppyfields Drive in Altadena.
Today we discuss one of the pivotal events of the 1960s: the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Though the gunman was caught at the scene, confessed at trial, and even bragged about the shooting, his motives have largely been forgotten.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
