[Letter to Steven Joseph from Lewis M. Weinstein]

t '

6. Dr. Abraham Pinter of the Public Health Research Institute
submitted a grant in response to the Army's solicitation. Dr. Pinter's proposal
presents a novel approach towards the development of a broadly protective
vaccine that has a number of theoretical and practical advantages over
existing vaccine strategies. One of the aims of this vaccine is to induce
antibodies to native epitopes in the V1/V2 domain of gpl20. Recent
information has shown that such antibodies are important for protection in
vivo, and also that most HIV-infected people do not have high levels of these
antibodies. Therefore, this approach may be of use therapeutically, as well as
prophylactically. A second aim is to induce antibodies against strains found
in the Third World, which existing vaccines cannot do, and which should be
of considerable value to the Army. Dr. Pinter has recently made additional
progress in demonstrating both the utility and feasibility of his proposal. In
view of the failures of the existing vaccine approaches, we feel there is great
need and merit in funding innovative approaches such as this one, and that
this would be an extremely valuable use of the monies budgeted for this
program.
7. Dr. Pirnter's grant was awarded a priority score of 240. which placed it
# 9 in the sequence established by the peer review committee. The highest
rated grant received a score of 160, grant # 8 received a score of 230, and grant
# 10, the one after Dr. Pinter's grant, received a score of 280. We have been
advised by several members of the peer review committee that the committee
reviewed the ranked scores at the end of the meeting in order to determine
the reasonableness of the ranking of all projects in relation to their opinion of
the projects, and they felt that this ranking was appropriate.
8. Subsequent to the meeting of the peer review committee, the
executive summary report was written. We have just received a copy of this
report. It is a well-written, highly sophisticated analysis of Dr. Pinter's grant
application, obviously prepared by a very knowledgeable person. It selectively
emphasizes every negative aspect of this project and, in our opinion, overstates many of the implications of those criticisms. More important,
however, is the fact that the executie summaryrort is totally inconsistent
with a priority score of 240.
The comment at the end of the report that the grant is not
recommended for funding is particularly puzzling. Were such comments
included on other executive summary reports which received much lower
priority scores than Dr. Pinter's grant? Members of the peer review
committee have advised us there was no discussion in the peer review
committee meeting that Dr. Pinter's grant should not be funded. In fact, the
opposite may very well be the case, since it was so highly ranked. Where did
that comment in the executive summary come from? Who wrote the
executive summary? Who provided input? When?