Institutional Response to the HIV Blood Test Patent Dispute and Related Matters

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO...SPUTE AND RELATED MATIERS http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucg...StaRepFolder/StaReps.html: - -:- ~~~f Utly ibiovng the HHS press conference.
Accordingly, by Dr. Brandt's account, the very day of the press conference, he relayed an order
to Dr. Gallo, via NCI Director, Dr. Vincent DeVita, to move immediately to compare the viruses.
B. Comparisons in the Spring/Summer of 1984
Three kinds of comparisons of LAV and HTLV-III (with IIIb as the prototype) were carried out
in the Spring and Summer of 1984. No results from these comparisons were ever published.
1. Serological Comparisons: A paper describing the results of the serological comparisons
based on the CDC samples (see a ove) was written, but never published. Dr. Gallo evidently did
not favor publication of this paper. A draft, prepared by CDC scientist Dr. Donald Francis,
concluded this:
"Overall a high proportion of patients' serum reacted in all laboratories whether
HTLV-III or LAV prototype strains were used as antigens."
The draft manuscript containing these observations was sent to Dr. Gallo for his comments.
When Gallo responded, two months later, he did not deal with the contents of the paper.
Instead, Gallo questioned the very existence of the paper, telling Dr. Francis that:
"... I hardly think this [the serological comparison]is very important since we have
said from the first that the viruses are likely to be the same, and since the data was
obtained all of us have publicly reported it. A comparison of sera with both is nice
but not of any real concern" (emphasis added; 12/27/84 Gallo-to-Francis letter).
Dr. Gallo also told Dr. Francis that until the IP and LTCB scientists published their own
comparisons of their virus isolates,
"... neither you nor anyone else should be making serological comparative papers."
Dr. Gallo devoted the bulk of his letter to Dr. Francis to a declamation on the merits of
"HTLV-III" as the designation for the AI --
Francis' use of the term "LAV/HTLV-III." Gallo told Francis:
"I think it is silly... for you to persist in the LAV (first) HTLV-III nomenclature...
LAV is clearly an inaccurate name and AIDS virus or AIDS related virus is the
dumbest name I have yet heard... Clearly, human T lymphotropic virus III is as
accurate, as innocuous, and as consistent with the past... as any name possible."
Dr. Gallo went on to assert that,
"... last June, Jim Curran and Dr. Murphy assured me this would be the CDC name
when our lines(s) and other reagents were distributed."
But when Dr. Francis passed a copy of Gallo's letter to Murphy, querying him, 'What was the
deal," Murphy responded, in writing, "I don't recall any deal whatsoever regarding names."
Dr. Gallo further said in his letter to Dr. Francis that, "If LAV procedes (sic) HTLV-III in this
paper as a title then I will be last author. If not, I don't care who the last author is." Dr. Gabo
added this ultimatum:

"One or the other Don, but not both for your friends abroad."

4 of 31

1/9/98 9:26 AM