[Memorandum to Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS Research Committee Members from Bruce G. Weniger]

- ur: OPRAGEN

PHONE NO. " 01483 560"74

OJan. 06 1997 i:20PM P02

Position Paper
Approaches to a Vaccine Protective against AIDS.
R.E. Spier
Editor: VACCINE
University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 5XH, U.K.
6th January, 1997
I. The Background
Thie current approaches to the epidemic disease caused by the Human immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) commonly known as the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
are seriously flawed. They devolve from the approach which contends, that if we know
everything about the virus at the atomic level then it will be possible to design and
manufacture specific chemical molecules which will uniquely interfere with the virus
replicative process without deleterious side-effects to the human host of the virus, and
thereby cure or ameliorate the disease. After 10 or so years of such investigations we
have more knowledge about the molecular and atomic biology of the HIV than any other
human disease causing virus. Such information has, in part, led to the generation of
drugs which will inhibit two virus specific enzymes, the reverse transcriptase and the
virus protease. At present it would seem that a combination of three such drugs may hold
the virus replication at bay and possibly extend the life of those who are currently
infected with the HIV. Such a treatment is expected to cost each of the infected
individuals some $9,000/annum.
It is crystal clear that the program which has resulted in the above drugs has been driven
by the pharmaceutical industry. Were I million AIDS patients to spend $9,000/annum
then that industry would increase its income by $9billion/annum. It is thus convenient
for the pharmaceutical industry to dominate the award systems for the research contracts
which have been focused on the AIDS disease. It is also useful for that industry to have
the research work divided amongst a large variety of independent laboratories, for under
such situations it is impossible for any one laboratory to achieve a commanding patent
or intellectual property position. Thirdly, it has to be recognised that the system of
research contract awards is woefully inefficientwhen it comes to measuring its
productivity against objective criteria such as a disease cure or preventative. This latter
point is obvious when one considers that a high proportion of the more gifted people in
the university research sector spend a good deal of their time writing grant applications
(a majority of which are turned down), in university administrative and teaching duties
and in outside consultancies or writing and reviewing papers. They do not and cannot
devote their entire efforts and imagination to any one of the projects they have in hand