To Fund or Not to Fund, that is the Question: Proposed Experiments on the Drug-AIDS Hypothesis

10

DUESBERG FUNDING

set of experimental proposals that would never in themselves
achieve the aim of proving nitrite usage to cause AIDS...I am
convinced that the study section has reviewed the grant
application appropriately and professionally...
Reviewer R2 also made extremely strong comments against
Koshland's letter supporting Duesberg's grant application, and the
propriety of such support. Short of reproducing both letters in full,
which I cannot do for a number of reasons, I do not want to quote from
those comments because readers would not have the full context for
these comments (that is both Koshland's letter and Reviewer R2's full
comments) to verify their legitimacy.
The third review shuffled back and forth. Excerpts from it will give
its gist.
Reviewer R3. I agree with Dr. Koshland's letter that Duesberg
should have an opportunity to experimentally defend his
proposal that nitrite inhalants are important factors (or cofactors) in immunosuppression, K.S. and/or AIDS. I am not sure
that without some preliminary data from his lab, as well as
evidence that the collaboration set up with Otto Raabe is
workable, that the application is worthy of funding. The Study
Section Summary Statement also correctly notes that the design
of the mouse experiments is not clear. Based on these
considerations, I think that Peter himself as a reviewer would
not support what might be considered as a "fishing expedition".
On the other hand, some of the points in the grant application
are noteworthy of study, e.g., determining appropriate doses of
nitrite inhalants in mice that can be validly used to study their
immunotoxic potential. However, I am not a toxicologist and
would defer to such expertise on this point, as well as on which
nitrite derivatives are best to utilize.
In summary, Duesberg raises a highly relevant and important
set of experiments that he and his group have the capability to
perform; however, the lack of preliminary data and clear
rationale would generate only moderate enthusiasm for funding
at this time. On the specific issue of whether the application
should have been "not recommended for further consideration"
(NERF), that is a judgement call. I would not have gone that far
based on my limited reading of the proposal; however, if I were
present at the actual review, listening to the primary and