Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Warned About AIDS Grants
winksmith writes "The NYTimes (free registration, etc.) is
reporting
that scientists researching STD's (including AIDS) must be careful in the wording of reports and particularly of grant requests. many have been verbally warned that phrases like: "sex workers," "men who sleep with men," "anal sex" and "needle exchange," may cause the government to withhold grant money."
Tens of millions of people in Africa DO have aids.
That's true, and it's a tragedy. But to a great extent, there's NOTHING we can do about that. The populations of Europe and America and Australia are largely resistant to HIV because of CCR5-(delta)32. That mutation was selected for in the 12th C. during the Black Death. People living in Africa and Asia are much more susceptable to HIV than people of European extraction, and there's nothing we can do about that.
The fact remains that cancer, stroke, diabetes, heart disease, and trauma are all more significant killers than HIV. And among infectious diseases, malaria and influenza are bigger killers.
You can't just take an AIDS researcher, who presumably has come up with what he feels is unique insight into fighting AIDS, and move him into heart disease.
Of course not. HIV is an infectious disease; heart disease isn't. But you can move an HIV researcher over to influenza or malaria.
It is about avoiding "politically charged" AIDS research - research into how AIDS spreads, by and large, which is preventative research and has the highest yield per dollar spent - because of the politico-religious convictions of right wing zealots in congress who still think only gay people get AIDS.
Here's a clue for you, dude: AIDS is largely confined to the homosexual, drug user, and prostitute community. I say "largely" on purpose; it's not exclusively confined to that community, but it is mostly confined to that community. This shouldn't directly influence our decisions about researching the disease, but the simple fact is that AIDS will largely take care of itself if left alone. Faced with that, it's hard to justify spending money on AIDS when that money could be spent on cancer instead.
Well, and whaddayaknow, a large chunk of AIDS funding goes towards education to let people know about that. Because, you see, kids aren't born with that kind of knowledge.
Unfortunately, many of the same people who keep talking about people "accepting responsibility for their actions" want to keep the government from giving that information from teenagers.
If people stopped doing the things that spread AIDS (it's not exactly airborne), it would eventually go away. Consequently, politicians and activist groups would lose a manipulation tool to siphon tax dollars away from issues that are a lot less preventable and affect more people.
You are pitting logic against the raging hormones of hundreds of milions of teenagers? You are a fool. STDs have been with us throughout history. If the Spanish inquisition, the Pope, the Nazis, and the Chinese, haven't managed to get rid of them over the last several thousand years, right wing moralizing by US politicians and their followers sure as hell isn't going to do it either. People like Helms have envy the Spanish inquisition, but they are wimps in comparison.
siphon tax dollars away from issues that are a lot less preventable and affect more people.
Yes, that is compassionate conservatism in a nutshell: "these people made a mistake, so let them rot in hell". That's a lot of how conservative thinking works, where "hell" is varyingly "untreated AIDS", "homelessness", or "prison rape". It's an OK position to take--civilizations have done so throughout history. Let's just drop the "compassionate", "moral", and "Christian" pretenses usually associated with such positions: such views are rooted in greed, selfishness, and social Darwinism.