The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers Vol. 32

, SW JULY 1984

forced his beliefs. "I wanted to write an update. but
there was no hard intormation tor quite a wnie.
Then he heard about Mason's comments at the New
York medical conferench. and shortlv therearter the
April 7 Lancet paper "supported the LAV role.'
Altman called Berreth on Acrii 1" (three days befo-e Don Abrams went on tne radio). Altman was
going to Birmingham. Alabama. tor a meeting. Could
he stop in Atlanta and interview Mason on AIDS?
The interview took place on Friday. April 20 In the
ensuing article. Altman focused on LAV rather than
It took.. one or
two calls to find out
that the two-to-three
year projection.
was unrealistic.
HTLV-3 because "I had no rurther news to add. I
told the editors to run the wire-service copy on HTLV
because I couldn t reach Gailo When I decided to
write an update, I started calling him. but he did not
return my telephone calls over a tew weeks.'
"Thus, a combnion or events made It" ook as
though the CDC and the.\'ew York T:mes conspired
tor their mutual benerit. In fact. says Berreth. "Mason
had been touting LAV for some time to anyone who
would listen. It lust didn t become a scoop until all
the leaked stories [on HTL'] had appeared."
Did Mason oversell LAV? Certainly the evidence
presented by Gallo in the Science papers was much
more overwhelming than anything done by the CDC
or the Institut Pasteur separately or together. But the,eroepidemioiog" done by CDC clearly builds a strong
case ror LAV as a causative agent ror AIDS. And
Mason s claim that. "We have round the cause or
AIDS" is true it, as expected. LAV and HTLV-3 turn
out to be identical. His announcement takes nothing
away trom Gallo's achievement. The net public errect
or the pat on the back by Mason to his organization
may be to make it clear that two U.S science agencies. rather than one, were making progress on AIDS,
although Mason's nring also reveals a certain amount
or competition between CDC and NIH.
The Press Conterence, ith all the rumors and oarnal reaorts floanng around,
the government (read Reagan Administration) was
eager to do something to get credit. Things at DHHS
ottices and at NIH were confused the week of Apnl
1. Gallo was in Europe. Rumors were that Heckler
was unavailable. Some said Assistant Secretary Edward Brandt wanted to go with a tull release immediately but was vetoed tor political reasons. One

sournajist told me, "Things were chaos in the halls
or NIH. No one could tell me what was going on or
when it was going to happen."
It appears that the chaos was not due to the demands ot arranging the press conference at the last
minute but rather to a debate about whether to advance the date or a press conference that had already
been planned. In fact. I learned that the hghesLechelons ot DHHS knew about the Gallo papers before
thev were submitted to Science and that top officials
wanted to hay re conrerence ri ht then. before
the manuscripts were even reviewed. At ur
telep one calls-buttressed. I was told. b,e-tsal)to appear at a press conference before the
papers were accepted-led to the eventual scuttling
or plans tor an immediate press conterence.
The cast was tinallv assembled in Wash gton on
Monday, April 23. tor what Newsweek called the
"splashiest announcement" in the AIDS saga. Secretarv Heckler spoke in what one tournalist called
'tlowery" language. saving the research had been
"on target and only two or three rings away trom
the bull's-eve.
Added the Secretary, 'The NCI work provides the
proor we need that the cause ot AIDS has been found."
At the press conference, several otficials said that a
vaccine would be ready in two or three years and
that a blood test for screening transtusions for AIDS
virus would be available perhaps in six months. lust
as Mason had tocused on LAV a few days earlier.
the DHHS conrerence dealt almost exclusively with
the XCI isolate.
The press conterence itself was a "zoo." said one
ournaiist. as reporters with all different levels or
scientiric and medical background asked questions
with all ditterent degrees ot sophistication. In addition. Heckler had a sore throat and didn't deliver her
remarks. so it wasn t clear until reporters got back
to their ottices that she had made several comments
that needed to be cianted.
Preys Cox'raget.
Coverage ot the press conference was almost anticihmactic. Most stories duiv reported the discovery
or a "new virus" by Gallo's group. In contrast, Larry
Altman s story was subheaded. "Virus could be the
same as one round by French."
(It is interesting to note that American attempts to
give international credit may not have been reflected
on the other side ot the ocean. Gallo told me that no
French reporters have called him in the wake of the
press conrerence.
but many tournalist~ correctly perceived that the
major advance was the development by Gallo's group
of the ability to grow large quantities of the virus.
making possible a blood test. The availability of large
amounts ot viral material also made possible molecular analvsis ot the virus, a requisite for making the
kind of vaccine likely required in this case.