HIV and AIDS: Questions of Scientific and Journalistic Responsibility

HIV AND AIDS

21

Laureate in chemistry: Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the geneamplification technique Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). PCR
is one of the main biological tools used in AIDS research. But a
fact that is virtually never reported is that Mullis is an HIV
skeptic. In 1991, speaking on the record for the first time, Mullis
told SPIN, "PCR made it easier to see that certain people are
infected with HIV, and some of those people came down with
symptoms of AIDS. But that doesn't begin even, to answer the
question, "Does HIV cause it?"
Celia Farber published an interview with Kary Mullis in the 4 July
1994 issue of SPIN, from which I quote.
Our talk focused on AIDS. Though Mullis has not been
particularly vocal about his HIV skepticism, his convictions
have not, to his credit, been muddled or softened by his recent
success and mainstream acceptability. He seems to revel in his
newly acquired power. "They can't pooh-pooh me now, because of
who I am," he says with a chuckle -- and by all accounts, he's
using that power effectively...6
6Actually, Mullis in April 1994 was at a scientific meeting in Europe, where he is
reported to have acted like a jerk. Cf. a letter to Nature by John F. Martin,
President of the European Society for Clinical Investigation, Nature 371, 8
September 1994. His capacity for acting like a jerk (his own word) was
mentioned in his California Monthly interview. Nobody I know is hiding this
aspect of his personality. My conclusion about dealing with Kary Mullis is to
separate what he does on a personal basis, and which has sometimes been
objectionable, from the insights he provides as a scientist when he's not
behaving like a jerk.
He does not always act like a jerk at. meetings, for instance at the Pacific
Division AAAS meeting (see below), where he raised perfectly valid questions.
The answer which Kary Mullis gave to the quote from Baltimore, extracted at
the beginning of this article, was very sensible, to the effect that what he
believes about AIDS is irrelevant, because beliefs have to do with religion, and
we are attempting to deal with science. What is scientifically relevant is what
documentation is available about the nature of HIV and its effects, and what
documentation is available about various diseases and antibodies for certain
viruses or bacilli.
It is unfortunate that in addition to all other problems one is facing in the
confrontation about HIV and AIDS, one has in addition to cope with the
personal behavior of a scientist who had enough insight to discover PCR. It is
left for participants in the HIV-AIDS debate to sort out the personal behavior