Virus seekers

Consider this dilemma. Conservative e-timates indicate that many sub-Saharan countries will lose a quarter of their populations to AIDS by...

Consider this dilemma. Conservative e-timates indicate that many sub-Saharan countries will lose a quarter of their populations to AIDS by 2010. Hence, it could be argued, any advances made in understanding the modes of transmission of HIV or in bringing down the cost of treatment would be of immediate relevance to these vast swathes of humanity. So, a bunch of good samaritans forsake their leafy Ivy League campuses for the grime and heat of Uganda and proceed with their cutting-edge research. After over 30 months of close observation of their control group, they attempt to delineate risk factors associated with heterosexual transmission of HIV.

Admirable, isn8217;t it? It is a different matter that over the course of the study 90 individuals contracted the deadly HIV virus, a risk the researchers were well aware of in fact, this is the very risk they were meticulously monitoring. How does this matter? Or so the argument goes, while hushing queries about the failure to obtain informed consent. After all, millions stand to benefit from this type of research. Why then the furore over 90 lives sacrificed for the larger interest of humanity?

Welcome to the brave new world. A world that demands uniform norms on things like intellectual property rights yet subscribes to different ethical standards when it comes to using humans as guinea pigs. The Ugandan study published in the New England Journal of Medicine raises very disturbing questions. First, it is indicative of the legal loopholes in Third World countries that researchers can exploit with impunity to expose local populations to deadly viruses, and get away with the crime of not informing their subjects about the infections they may be carrying.

Second, even if informed consent is obtained from subjects, are these individuals in a position to make a thorough appraisal of the risks involved? It is no coincidence that most control groups monitored for medical research in developing countries are needy and illiterate. It surely must be mandatory for scientists to spell out clearly and repeatedly to them the risk they are exposing themselves to. Third, since the leader of the team in question, Dr Thomas C. Quinn, has been conducting research in India since 1992, it is imperative that the parameters of his work in this country are investigated.

Exploratory research without appropriate consent and without transparency is bound to be one of the greyest areas as scientific research proceeds inexorably into the great unknown. Even the stringent norms in place in the West are proving to be a trifle inadequate, given the great ignorance that informs assessments of the benefits and dangers of genetically modified organisms and biomedicine. Just recently, after gene therapy claimed its first victim an American teenager his father claimed that he had not been told of the full risks of the treatment. As field trials for sundry agricultural and medicinal products and new health procedures get underway, new guidelines, irrespective of socio-political borders, will have to be framed.