HB 2739
In CommitteeHouse
Scientific research
Sustaining life-saving and prosperity-building scientific research in Washington by establishing the Washington institute for scientific advancement.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill responds to severe federal research funding cuts by creating the Washington Institute for Scientific Advancement to award state-funded research grants, and authorizes $6 billion in state bonds to sustain scientific research in Washington. It establishes a peer-review process, governance structure, and reporting requirements, and requires voter approval before taking effect.
- Creates the Washington Institute for Scientific Advancement within the Department of Commerce to administer state-funded scientific research grants.
- Authorizes $6 billion in state general obligation bonds to be issued between 2026 and 2031, with up to $1 billion per year, to fund scientific research in fields including health, agriculture, climate, and emerging technologies.
- Requires that all grants be awarded through a competitive, peer-reviewed process, prioritizing research that replaces lost federal funding and is conducted within Washington State.
- Establishes a 11-member Research Council to set priorities and approve grants, including scientists, university presidents (UW and WSU), and public members.
- Limits administrative costs to no more than 5% of total funds and requires annual public reporting on grants, research outcomes, and financial plans.
- Requires voter approval of the research-related provisions (Sections 401–412) at the next general election, and makes those sections contingent on voter ratification.
Who is affected
- Public research universities and colleges — Public research universities and colleges in Washington (e.g., University of Washington, Washington State University) would receive state-funded grants to replace lost federal research funding and avoid program cuts or closures.
- Scientists and researchers — Scientists, researchers, and graduate students across Washington would benefit from new funding opportunities, helping retain talent and prevent brain drain to other states or countries.
- Washington residents (especially those with health concerns or in vulnerable populations) — Patients and communities across Washington would benefit from advances in health research—including cancer, Alzheimer’s, and infectious disease prevention—and improved public health responses to outbreaks.
- State and local governments — State and local governments would gain from increased economic activity, job creation, and innovation-driven growth tied to research, while also bearing the cost of bond repayment.
- Private research organizations and small businesses — Private research organizations, biotech firms, and small businesses engaged in federally funded research would gain access to new state-level funding opportunities.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill creates a dedicated state-level funding stream for high-impact health research—including cancer, Alzheimer’s, infectious disease, and mental health—that directly supports Washington residents facing high rates of these conditions. Given Washington’s aging population and rising chronic disease burden, this could accelerate locally relevant diagnostics, treatments, and prevention strategies that federal cuts have stalled.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 403(1)(a)–(m); Sec. 403(5)The bill is projected to sustain over 10,000 jobs (based on UW’s FY2023 research impact) and prevent a “brain drain” of researchers and graduate students. Because the grants prioritize Washington-based researchers and institutions, the economic multiplier effect—especially in high-wage STEM fields—is likely to stay in-state, supporting not just researchers but also lab technicians, IT staff, construction workers for new facilities, and local service economies.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 403(1)(a)–(m); Sec. 403(5)The bill explicitly funds climate, weather, wildfire, and marine ecosystem research—critical for a state facing intensifying climate impacts (e.g., 2023’s catastrophic floods, 2024’s record wildfire smoke). State-funded research can develop localized adaptation strategies (e.g., flood-resilient infrastructure, fire-risk modeling, coastal erosion mitigation) that federal agencies may deprioritize, directly protecting communities and natural resources.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 403(1)(e), (h), (i), (j), (k); Sec. 403(5)By creating a state-level research institute with a peer-review process and requiring early-career researchers on the council, the bill aims to retain talent and expand research training opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students across Washington—including at non-R1 institutions. This could strengthen STEM pipelines and increase access to high-quality research experiences for students who might otherwise leave the state.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 401; Sec. 403(1)(a)–(m); Sec. 403(5)Funding for disease detection, addiction response, behavioral health, and wildfire prevention directly supports public safety infrastructure. For example, the bill’s focus on “detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats” could sustain WSU’s only accredited veterinary diagnostic lab in the state—critical for early detection of zoonotic outbreaks like HPAI, which threaten both animal and human health.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 403(1)(b), (d), (f), (g); Sec. 403(5)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill authorizes $6 billion in general obligation bonds to be repaid from the state’s general fund over multiple years, which will increase long-term debt service obligations and potentially crowd out funding for other essential public services like K–12 education, higher education, healthcare, and transportation—services that many Washingtonians rely on daily. While bond repayment is capped and spread over time, the opportunity cost of diverting general fund revenue to debt service represents a structural fiscal burden.
FinancialRef: Sec. 201(1); Sec. 204The bill prioritizes research that replaces *federally cut* funding, meaning research areas not currently receiving federal support—or those deprioritized by the current administration—may be deprioritized or excluded entirely, even if they pose urgent public safety or health threats. This creates a reactive rather than proactive research agenda, potentially leaving gaps in preparedness for emerging threats (e.g., novel pathogens, climate-related disasters) that federal cuts have already disrupted.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 403(5)While the bill includes health research priorities (e.g., cancer, Alzheimer’s), it does not mandate or incentivize equitable access to resulting treatments or therapies. Historically, research breakthroughs funded by state bonds have led to patented discoveries that are licensed to pharmaceutical or biotech firms, which often set high prices—limiting access for low-income and underinsured Washingtonians, especially for chronic conditions like diabetes or mental health disorders.
HealthcareRef: Sec. 403(1)(a)–(m); Sec. 403(5)The bill restricts grants to projects conducted *within Washington State*, but explicitly allows collaboration with out-of-state researchers. This may disproportionately benefit large, well-resourced institutions (e.g., UW, WSU) that have existing national/international networks, while smaller colleges and community-based research organizations may lack capacity to lead multi-institutional proposals—limiting equitable distribution of funds across the state’s research ecosystem.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 403(2); Sec. 403(5)The bill’s emphasis on replacing lost federal research funding—particularly in biomedical and clinical fields—may reinforce existing research hierarchies that favor large research universities over community colleges and regional universities, limiting opportunities for first-generation students, rural students, and students from underrepresented backgrounds to access research training and pipeline pathways into STEM careers.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 403(1)(a)–(m); Sec. 403(5)
Who Is Most Affected
Public research universities (UW, WSU) are primary grantees and will benefit significantly from sustained research capacity, job retention, and infrastructure development. However, they may face increased administrative burdens in managing state-specific reporting and compliance, and smaller institutions may struggle to compete for grants without existing federal grant infrastructure.
Scientists and researchers—especially early-career and graduate students—gain new funding pathways and job security, reducing brain drain. However, those in fields deprioritized by the bill (e.g., non-biomedical social science, pure mathematics) may see fewer opportunities, and competition for grants may intensify despite increased funding.
Residents with health conditions (e.g., cancer, Alzheimer’s, substance use disorders) stand to benefit from accelerated research and locally relevant interventions. However, if resulting therapies are patented and licensed to private firms, access may be limited by cost—especially for low-income, Medicaid, or uninsured individuals—unless explicit affordability provisions are added later.
State and local governments gain economic activity and long-term public health benefits, but bear the full cost of bond repayment from general funds—potentially diverting money from other priorities like K–12 education or transportation. Local governments may also face increased demand for services if research-driven growth attracts new residents without corresponding infrastructure investment.
Private research organizations and small biotech firms gain access to state funding, but the 5% administrative cap and peer-review focus may favor large, well-established institutions with existing grant infrastructure. Small businesses may benefit most from SBIR-style translational research, but only if the council explicitly prioritizes applied, near-term outcomes over basic science.