[Conference Materials, Panel to Review GP-160 Vaccine Candidate (1992: Bethesda, Maryland)]

AND ETHICAL STANDPOINT, SHOULD RECEIVE FEDERAL
SUPPORT. INSTEAD, WE HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE
UNUSUAL -- AND UNPRECEDENTED -- POSITION OF
DETERMINING WHETHER A SPECIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT,
MANDATED BY LEGISLATION, IS INDEED WORTHY OF
FEDERAL SUPPORT. ONE MIGHT SAY THAT IT IS A
CASE OF THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG.
I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU SHARE MY CONCERNS
ABOUT THE UNUSUAL AND UNPRECEDENTED POSITION IN
WHICH THE NIH FINDS ITSELF. AND, LIKE MANY OF
YOU, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS AND DEEP RESERVATIONS
ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH GP-160 WAS SELECTED
BY THE CONGRESS FOR THE PROPOSED EFFICACY TRIAL.
NOT ONLY IS THIS A CASE OF LAW PREEMPTING
SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENT, IT IS A CASE OF
LAW PREEMPTING SCIENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF A
CLINICAL TRIAL INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS. I AM
SURE THAT MANY OF YOU SHARE MY CONCERNS ABOUT
THE PRECEDENT THAT SUCH A PREEMPTION MAY SET.

4