Magazine article Nieman Reports

Meshing Science, Money and Politics in a Book about AIDS Vaccines: `Narrative Was an Obvious Tool for Approaching Such a Story.' (Science Journalism)

Magazine article Nieman Reports

Meshing Science, Money and Politics in a Book about AIDS Vaccines: `Narrative Was an Obvious Tool for Approaching Such a Story.' (Science Journalism)

Article excerpt

It was October 1996 when the idea of writing a book about AIDS vaccines came to me during an early morning shower. I was working on a Harvard Health Letter story about the year's top medical advances, and high on the list was the dramatic, life-saving impact of new drug cocktails for HIV/ AIDS. I remembered the early 1980's, when many journalists weren't sure we would ever be writing a good news story about treatments for this horrible new disease. Now that scientists had accomplished this miracle, why didn't we have an AIDS vaccine--a product that could protect against HIV infection in the first place?

I never imagined that answering this question would consume the next five years of my life. Nor did I anticipate that in this story, science would be inextricably linked with big business and with politics on a grand scale. Because of this story's expansive context and my decision about how best to tell it, my book, "Big Shot: Passion, Politics, and the Struggle for an AIDS Vaccine," would be unlike anything else I had written.

Reading the scientific literature is always a good place to begin such a reporting journey. Journal articles and related news coverage led me to conceive of this story as a man vs. bug tale, in which the central issue was the technical challenge of making a vaccine against a highly mutable virus that attacks the very cells meant to defend against infection. I put together a list of leaders in the field and hit the road with notepad and tape recorder, going to scientific conferences and setting up interviews at companies, universities and government laboratories.

From the start, experts wanted to talk about a lot more than the scientific difficulties of designing HIV vaccines. Dozens of people told how politics, money and the culture of science itself had all been roadblocks to vaccine development. And, without my asking, they all brought up an event in June 1994, when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) pulled back from what was expected to be the world's first efficacy trial--a clinical study large enough to demonstrate whether either of two vaccines could protect thousands of high-risk volunteers against infection.

NIH's decision was applauded by researchers who thought these specific vaccines were worthless. The products' sponsors vehemently disagreed. Others in the field were angry with NIH's decision because the reaction of many drug companies was to downsize or cancel their HIV vaccine programs, believing that the government could not be trusted as a business partner. Regardless of where vaccine insiders stood on the wisdom of this decision, they couldn't stop talking about it. They agreed about only one thing: Eventually, huge clinical trials would be needed to arrive at a safe, effective vaccine to prevent AIDS.

At this point, I was six months into my research. Although no experimental AIDS vaccine had yet entered an efficacy trial--the final step in clinical testing--dozens had been tested in small Phase I trials aimed at demonstrating safety. This is of paramount importance because vaccines, unlike therapeutic drugs, are given to people who are healthy. It seemed to me that the world would be far closer to having a vaccine to prevent AIDS if more candidates had been tested in more people earlier on. I knew this was going to be an important theme in whatever l wrote, although I hadn't a clue where it would fit in.

About this time I heard that researchers at the NIH Clinical Center were enrolling volunteers in a Phase I test of a new kind of vaccine against HIV. DNA vaccines were the hot technology of the moment; I had interviewed the inventor and understood the product, and I was game to enroll myself in this trial. My family was opposed because they didn't want me to be a guinea pig, and some friends thought :it was inappropriate for a journalist to become involved a story in such a personal way. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.