Next week in Amsterdam, a small gathering of writers and scientists
will discuss 鈥榓 different view鈥� of AIDS. Among the speakers will be Peter
Duesberg, a virologist known for his belief that HIV is not the cause of
AIDS and that 鈥榣ifestyle鈥� factors, such as drug misuse, are responsible.
If all this sounds familiar, that is because it is. For about the past
four years, Duesberg鈥檚 views have been aired regularly. With equal regularity,
scientists have produced powerful arguments against them. From the epidemiology
to the molecular biology, there is abundant evidence that HIV is the causative
agent of AIDS.
But judging from the publicity that next week鈥檚 conference has already
attracted, it is clear that there is still plenty of confusion and disquiet
鈥� not just about Duesberg but about AIDS in general. It is not good enough
for mainstream scientists simply to dismiss this: the confusion needs to
be addressed.
Advertisement
First, two questions have become muddled. Duesberg鈥檚 question is whether
HIV causes AIDS: he thinks the answer is no. He is alone among scientists
on this. The second question is how the virus destroys the immune system.
Virtually all scientists would admit that the answer remains that they do
not know. The way HIV interacts with the immune system is clearly much more
complicated than the first naive theories suggested. But just because the
virus鈥檚 methods are more devious than we once thought, that doesn鈥檛 exonerate
it.
Some press and TV reports in Britain have portrayed AIDS researchers
as a monolithic, rigid bunch unable to revise their ideas. Broadly speaking,
that鈥檚 both unfair and untrue, however attractive it may be to conspiracy
theorists at both ends of the political spectrum. The 鈥榤ainstream鈥� on both
sides of the Atlantic has lately been abuzz with healthy debate about the
mechanisms of AIDS (see New 女生小视频, Science, 14 and 21 September 1991).
But there is another, more worrying reason for the apparent appeal of
Duesberg鈥檚 theory. If people believe that HIV is innocent and that AIDS
is caused by 鈥榣ifestyle鈥� factors peculiar to gay men and drug abusers, then
this may lead them to thinking that AIDS is someone else鈥檚 problem.
Undoubtedly there are big gaps in our knowledge: why does the spread
of HIV seem to be slower in the industrialised world than in Africa and
Asia? Why do some people seem to live peaceably with HIV for a decade? Few
scientists would claim they had the answers, but they are looking, and hard.
It鈥檚 up to them and to journalists to communicate this, so that AIDS can
receive the sophisticated public debate it deserves. Otherwise confusion
and complacency will take over.
