IAVI Report Vol. 2, no. 2

An Interview with David Baltimore

In December 1996, David Baltimore, Ph.D., was appointed chair of the AIDS Vaccine
Research Committee of the National Institutes of Health, USA (NIH). The committee
was appointed by NIH Director Harold Varmus to provide advice on the NIH's overall
AIDS vaccine research program.As a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Dr Baltimore was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975 for his work on retroviruses. Dr Baltimore has also served as president of Rockefeller University and was
recently appointed president of the California Institute of Technology

IAVI REPORT: It's been six months since
you became head of the NIH's AIDS
Vaccine Research Committee. Are you
now more or less optimistic about
prospects for an AIDS vaccine?
DAVID BALTIMORE: When I first
contemplated the job, I was very unsure
whether there was enough evidence to be
optimistic. After looking at the research, I
discovered that live-attenuated vaccines give
pretty solid protection in monkeys. So, it
seemed to me that if you could prevent
AIDS in monkeys, there ought to be a way
to do it in humans.That was six months ago
and I haven't changed that opinion. But I
haven't strengthened it either
IAVI REPORT: What kind of progress has
your committee made so far?
BALTIMORE: We're getting up to speed
about the research program and the
elements that go into it. Our general
philosophy is to encourage the pursuit of
many different vaccine approaches without
prejudging any approach.
We've had a session on live-attenuated
vaccines and we're planning one on antibody
response. And individual members are
beginning to take on differentiated roles
within the committee.
We want to get industry more involved in
HIV vaccine development and to define their
role in this effort. I have already met with
researchers from Merck and Pasteur
Merieux Connaught and plan on meeting
with other companies.
Our biggest effort so far has been to
launch the Innovation Grants Program
which is designed to fund important areas
in HIV vaccine research.Three key areas of
research have been identified.The program
was set up in an extremely rapid time
period and over I 00 grant applications are
now being reviewed. AmFAR (the
American Foundation for AIDS Research)
is running a similar grant program
modeled on this.

IAVI REPORT: When will the Innovation
Grants begin awarding funds?,
BALTIMORE: This Fall. It's on a very fast
track Six million dollars has been budgeted
and that's not the limit of resources that we
can draw upon.We also plan to add new
research categories in the future.
IAVI REPORT: President
Clinton has made theI
development of an AIDS In 15 y
vaccine within ten years a resear4
national goal. How has this
impacted your work? focused
BALTIMORE: By setting this
goal, the President has helped our effor
raise the visibility of the issue. l
This will help us, along with limited
the Innovation Grants, to
vaccine i
attract new researchers to
the field. But in 10 years, if we Some o
don't have good candidate
vaccines to put in clinical field now kn
tests then we really have to
ask whether we can ever get us6
make a vaccine.
In 15 years of AIDS
research, we have focused almost all our
efforts on a very limited number of vaccine
approaches. Some of these, we can now
say pretty clearly, won't get us anywhere.
For example, most of the vaccines
developed so far have been based on
laboratory strains of HIV
IAVI REPORT: It seems that from the
beginning there has been tension between
the so-called empiricists and so-called basic
scientists.Why is that?
BALTIMORE: I've been trying to understand
that as best I can. It's one of the real learning
curves for me. Everybody says empirical
research is what gives you a vaccineWell, it
doesn't give you anything else in science, so
why should it give you an AIDS vaccine?
Empiricism, as I understanchit, is fundamentally research by analogy It worked before
so it'll work again. But in science you don't just.Fa,ts
n
at
fi
o0

try anything.You don't go out and take
protein off the shelf and start injecting people.
There must be logic and reason behind it
When people defend the use of a gp120
vaccine developed from a laboratory strain
they make scientific arguments about why
this candidate vaccine might induce
protective immunity in humans. -Now, I think
the bulk of the scientific community believes
that a pure protein vaccine based on a
laboratory strain is not going to protect
humans, but it's still a scientific argument that
is being.made.
In the end, it's a matter of
whether you try things for
rs of AIDS which the scientific rationale
is weak or for which the
we have rationale is reasonable. And
dmost all that is based on your
scientific judgment and the
on a Very resources that are available.
Other people say they just
umber of want to initiate human trials.
Now, if they have the
resources to do it, either
these, we private or non-NIH
resources, fine. I wouldn't
)w, won't for a moment interfere with
that, and if they can prove
zywhere. me wrong, so much the
betterThat is the way
science works.
IAVI REPORT: Other programs outside
NIH might have different approaches.
BALTIMORE: Yes. For example, the
Department of Defense HIV vaccine
program is run separately from the NIH
program.They make their own decisions.
And that's a good thing. I've always been
very much in favor of pluralistic funding for
research simply for that reason, because then
different people can make judgments about
what's right and wrong and receive funding.
In the end it's proved out by the science.
IAVI REPORT: Let's go through a couple of
vaccine approaches.Will there be efficacy
studies of the canarypox prime boost
construct?
BALTIMORE: I really don't know. A Phase I1
test is underway It is actually designed
somewhat differently than Phase I studies.