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

DUESBERG FUNDING

7

- It was claimed that "the proposed design of the mouse experiments
is not clear", because of the order in which inhalants would be given
after mice being exposed to virus. But the proposal would give mice
simultaneously virus and inhalants, and see how they progress together
to test inhalants as a "cofactor". The proposal would also give
inhalants alone. Of course, other experiments could be done in giving
inhalants first, giving virus first, or whatnot. Just because there are
several variations which could give rise to several types of
experiments is not a justification to prevent one among many possible
experiment from being carried out.
- The last objection was the period of 6-24 months exposures for mice.
The objection states: "Twenty-four months is a very large part of the
total life span of laboratory mice. Many mice may not survive the
experiment." But results would already have been obtained for
exposures of 6 months, and pushing the exposures to 24 months would not
invalidate the results for 6 months, so the logic of the objection is
defective. In addition, cancer studies on mice which routinely study
mice for periods up to 24 months are routinely funded. Therefore
recommending that the proposal not be funded partly because the
period exposure for mice goes up to 24 months is an illegitimate
recommendation.
~3. Journalistic treatment of the case by Science.
In his letter to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Koshland
recognized the scientific and public interest of the proposed
experiments. He wrote explicitly: "I believe that this research would
add much to our understanding of AIDS, and I have told Duesberg that
I would consider such data important material for readers of Science if
it develops appropriately."
As of now, the material can't develop because it is obstructed by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse and its referees.
Not having seen any report on these matters in Science, I contacted
Science's news editor Ellis Rubinstein. In a letter dated 19 January 1994,
I informed him of the above events. I thought that the difficulties
Duesberg was experiencing document an important case when someone
wants to do an experiment which might raise questions about the