AIDS Research and Treatment Funding

“AIDS is no longer a death sentence for those who can get the medicines. Now it's up to the politicians to create the "comprehensive strategies" to better treat the disease”-Bill Clinton

AIDS has been an important international issue for the past 25 years, especially as the number of infected people continues to rise as of late. However, the above quote, made by Bill Clinton, explains that AIDS treatment and research has come a long way since the disease was discovered. Many people are able to live with the disease, yet 2 million people a year die from AIDS related illnesses (UNAIDS). The search for the cure and better treatment continues to this day, however, it is a hot topic for debate. One side of the argument is explained in “Too much spending on AIDS” by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid adamantly explains that governing entities, on both the national and international level, are focusing too much of their health-care oriented monetary resources on AIDS instead of other “bigger” health issues. On the other side of the argument, represented by the article “A chorus of Disapproval,” the argument exists that the funding that is focused on AIDS right now is not only necessary, but it is not enough to fully control the spread of the disease. Though AIDS is a spreading international problem, the articles “Too much spending on AIDS” and “A chorus of Disapproval” illustrate the extremes on the spectrum of differing viewpoints on the levels of funding because of differing views of AIDS in the medical and political communities and the overall significance of the disease in regards to its growth and danger to the population.

The major focus of “Too Much Spending on AIDS” is fairly self-evident from title: there is too much government spending on AIDS. The author explains that the reason AIDS gets so much funding is because of “mass media coverage” as evidenced by the fact that AIDS is often a major focus in the news, movies, songs, and even within celebrity popular culture. This article continues to explain that “AIDS is a horrible disease, but so are many others that impact many more people,” specifically Alzheimer’s Disease. During the time that this work was written “4.5 million Americans were suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease” and “400,000 Americans” were infected with AIDS. Even though there is a large difference in the numbers, they may not make a significant impact at first glance. The significance of these numbers is shown by the fact that the National Institutes of Health spends an average of 162,790 dollars in research money per one death caused by AIDS and only 10,245 dollars in research money per one death associated with Alzheimer’s Disease, demonstrating that the funding is more than a little lopsided. Finally, the author warns that “If the funding levels for AIDS research increase, then the opportunity cost will be less funding for a more urgent health problem” which could cause more widespread damage (Kincaid).

On the completely opposite side of the conflict stands the Nature article, “A Chorus of Disapproval.” This article argues that the funding that AIDS research receives is necessary and perhaps even inadequate in the goal to fully control and treat the disease. The author of this article attacks the criticisms of the AIDS research programs by explaining that the “search for a malaria vaccine has seen dozens of failed trials” and that “only 3 AIDS vaccines have been tested.” The author also brings up the valid point that nowadays the rate of HIV is growing not only in previous HIV targets such as women, inhabitants of impoverished countries, and intravenous drug users, but also in “Latinos and gay men.” In order to combat the rising rates, more funding for treatment must be allocated to the cause. Lastly, the author raises the idea that “it is wrong to assume that governments will spend money effectively to fight AIDS if given funds to support health systems overall.” This assumption cannot be made because governments in the past have neglected primary HIV targets which ultimately led to the widespread outbreak and spread of this virus. At this point in time, “the world now has models for providing treatment and care in the places that sorely need it” and is in a position to combat AIDS. Because of the world’s current position in regards to AIDS, the article concludes that “this is no time to backslide” and reducing the funding for AIDS would be detrimental to the fight against the disease (Nature 454).

Both of these articles provide very clear and distinctive opinions regarding the topic of AIDS funding, and despite their clear differences they both agreed that AIDS was a dangerous disease that affects many people and one that needs to be treated and controlled. The authors’ opinions just differed in the aspect of the amount of money that should be allocated to the disease research. However, these articles represent extremes on the argument spectrum. What if people agreed that the solution to the AIDS funding controversy lay somewhere in the middle of the two arguments presented by these authors? The world is in a spot these days to maybe halt, or at least slow down the AIDS epidemic and provide better treatment. What would be the outcome if governments cut all funding for treatments and research? Would the disease continue to spread, possibly even faster, or in different strands? Because of these questions, money should be allocated to fighting the disease, however, extra and additional money should not just be tossed at the researchers and scientists. Already, AIDS receives 16 times the amount of money for research per death than Alzheimer’s Disease receives, and 10 times as many Americans suffer from Alzheimer’s than AIDS. AIDS research receives enormous levels of funding, but because there have been such monumental gains towards the control and universal treatment of this deadly and dangerous disease, funding needs to continue to be focused on AIDS, just not at a level higher than its current standing.

Works Cited

UNAIDS. 2009 Aids Epidemic Update. November, 2009.
http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/EpiUpdate/EpiUpdArchive/2009/default.asp>

“A Chorus of Disapproval.” Nature 454. Issue 551 (2008). 5 September, 2010.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7204/full/454551a.html>

Kincaid, Cliff. “Too Much Spending on AIDS.” 19 December, 2005.
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/too-much-spending-on-aids/>

Picture from: http://news-libraries.mit.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/money.jpg