Example research essay topic: Does Hiv Cause Aids The Controversy - 1,631 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... his that HIV is a passenger virus provides a consistent explanation for the unpredictable time interval between HIV infection and AIDS. " (Duesberg and Bialy, p. 5) In conclusion, the article claims that the report was selective. They point out variety of issues which questions the validity the paper. (The article is included with this essay and is worth a read. ) At the end of the article Duesberg and Bialy state with respect to the report, "It seems to us that the 'new developments' of Wei et al and Ho et al are a Mayday of AIDS virologists -- rather than a virologic al mayhem" (Duesberg and Bialy p. 6) DO FACTS EXIST TO SUPPORT THESE CLAIMS? Basically, scientists who subscribe to the argument that HIV does not cause AIDS focus on inconsistencies prevalent in the HIV/AIDS research. As already mentioned, Mullis has been unable to find a single document that proves HIV causes AIDS. Willner and Duesberg believe that AZT, drug use and a predisposition to diseases as culprits behind the epidemiology of AIDS.

There exists other inconsistencies cited by critics. For example, the fact that not all people infected with HIV develop aids. Only 30 to 50 percent of persons who test positive go on to develop AIDS within seven years. Some HIV positive people live ten years or longer without developing any complications or the AIDS disease. (Nash, P. 42). Another inconsistency cited that undercuts the HIV/AIDS connection is the problem with the current use of CD 4 cells as markers for the disease. Science magazine states, ."..

immune system cells known as CD 4 's was until recently considered the chief 'surrogate marker' for evaluating AIDS therapies. Now its value as a marker is in question. " (Science, Vol. 260 p. 1254) It appears that the CD 4 cells do not always indicate the health of an infected individual. Another problem with the disease is that HIV can produce an innocuous or flawed strain of HIV. This mutated strain exhibits a defective negative factor gene that renders the virus harmless.

The importance of this discovery is that it provides another angle about the HIV virus. HIV is a complex disease, and there exists inherent difficulties when trying to find a cure. (Nash. P. 42) Willner not only believes that other factors contribute to HIV but he even goes so far as to call into question Gallo's original HIV results. He contends that "Every statistic, every valid scientific observation and even the test of time now proves Gallo wrong. " (Sumeria P. 7). He also believes that nearly 500 of the world's top scientists are now challenging the HIV/ AIDS connection.

As is apparent, a substantial number of well-respected scientists contend that the HIV/AIDS issue warrants reevaluation. Even if these claims are true, I have not been able to find any specific study or proof that proves these statements. These claims, while compelling in nature, do not provide justifiable evidence to support the HIV/AIDS controversy. The question is whether this group of scientists will be able to effectively overthrow the dominant scientific paradigm that says HIV causes AIDS by supplying supportable evidence. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW? To understand how scientific theories change, one needs to look at Thomas Kuhn's philosophical essay, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Kuhn is a philosopher interested in how scientific theories are formulated, attacked, defended and ultimately replaced with a new theory. Kuhn calls the currently accepted scientific theory a "paradigm. " According to Kuhn, contrary to what most lay people think, the fashioning of scientific theories is not inductive but rather deductive. Scientists do not establish theories after neutrally and objectively analyzing data; rather, based upon initial impressions and scattered observation, scientists construct an elaborate theoretical superstructure and then fit subsequently accumulated data into that superstructure. For Kuhn, science is less an objective search for the truth than it is an attempt to justify a certain theoretical interpretation of scientific data. What is interesting about Kuhn's theory of scientific paradigms is its implications for how scientific theories are superseded and replaced by competing theories. There is a natural conservative tendency in science, a tendency seen in the scientific establishment's attempt to maintain dominant theoretical paradigms in the face of discordant scientific data.

Invariably, anomalies arise which are difficult to fit into the accepted theoretical paradigm. Kuhn says that anomalous data are either ignored or explained away when they are threatening to the dominant paradigm. Kuhn believes that "In the development of any science, the first received paradigm is usually felt to account quite successfully for most of the observation and experiments easily accessible to that science's practitioners... That professionalization leads, on the one hand to an immense restriction of the scientists' vision and to a considerable resistance to paradigm change. The science has become increasingly rigid. " (Kuhn P. 64) It is only when these anomalies accumulate that their force is fully recognized and then entire paradigm becomes untenable. The dominant paradigm is rejected and a new theoretical paradigm is posited in its place, usually based upon a more reasoned explanation of data anomalous within the context of the old paradigm.

A new scientific paradigm is thus created, which evolves and is eventually discarded in the same manner. Kuhn states, "That awareness of anomaly opens a period in which conceptual categories are adjusted until the initially anomalous has become the anticipated. At this point the discovery has been completed. " (Kuhn, P. 64) In other words, Kuhn argues that science is not a steady accumulation of knowledge but is rather a process of relatively stable periods of knowledge advancement and revolutionary periods during which the entire paradigm shifts or changes DO THE CONFLICTS CONSTITUTE CHANGE? The anomalies which lie at the heart of Duesberg, Mullis and Willner objections to the HIV/AIDS theory are emblematic of the circumstances promoting change which Kuhn refers to in his book. Duesberg is challenging the current HIV paradigm by claiming that not all HIV positive people have AIDS, stating that retroviruses are harmless, and the AZT and drug use cause the disease. These claims illustrate some of the inconsistencies with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

These inconsistencies create an unstable scientific atmosphere; and change is inevitable. Duesberg, Mullis and Willner are hoping that the current HIV theory will be modified as more and more conflicting evidence is presented. As stated before, once enough discordant evidence is compiled the HIV paradigm will have to be replaced. There does exist a problem with Duesberg in that, as the article in Science points out, some of his contentions regarding HIV and AIDS are dubious.

Thus, Duesberg's argument loses its steam and appears poorly constructed. For example, Science magazine states, "AZT and Illicit drugs, which Duesberg argues can cause AIDS, don't cause the immune deficiency characteristic of that disease. " (Science, Vol. 266 P. 1642). With respect to scientific change, however, Kuhn's belief is that the changes will take place providing the evidence is based on factual information. Based upon this statement, in spite of the problems with the first Duesberg article, the fact that he is still writing against the HIV theory shows there is room for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS? ? ? ? Provided the above information is accurate and scientifically provable, I believe Kuhn would agree there exists enough inconsistencies within the HIV/AIDS theory to justify a controversy. I believe, however, that the circumstances surrounding these inconsistencies are dubious. I am not convinced that scientific proof exists which proves that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. To help me reach this decision, I called the Duke Infectious Disease Center (Duke Aids Research and Treatment Center). I spoke with Robert Dodge, a clinician at the center and asked him if he was aware of any anomalies concerning the HIV/AIDS connection.

He was surprised to find that I had chosen this angle in my paper since he was absolutely positive that HIV directly and consistently causes AIDS. He was unable to come up with a single anomaly that contradicts this assertion. On the other hand, the point that there is a controversy shows that it may be time for the scientific community to re-focus its sights. As the Duesberg and Bialy article states, "Perhaps even science reporter begin to wonder how much further the virus-AIDS hypothesis can be stretched to explain it most obvious failure and inconsistencies" (Duesberg and Bialy, p. 6) Thus, the scientific community is on the eve of a HIV/AIDS revolution. The controversy is the first step.

Hopefully this will lead to further research, more anomalies and eventually a new paradigm. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Mortimer J. The Great Ideas: A Lexicon of the Western Thought. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, Copy right 1992, by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Special Issue AIDS the unanswered questions.

Science. 28 May, 1993, Vol. 260, pages 1209 - 1396. Cohen, Jon The Duesberg Phenomenon. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science. 9, December, 1994, Vol. 266, pages 1642 - 1649. Kuhn, Thomas S.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1962 & 1970. Nash, Madeleine. An Aids Mystery Solved. Time.

November 20, 1995, Pages 42 - 43. School, Russell. A Conversation with Key Mullis. California Monthly. September 1994. Pages 15 - 21.

Wiener, Philip P. (Editor in Chief). Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Publishers, 1974. INTERNET ARTICLES ATTACHED FOR REFERENCE: Has Gallo Proven the Role of HIV in AIDS? http// web Medical Doctor Puts His Life on the Line to Prove the HIV Virus Does Not Cause AIDS SUMERIA Duesberg, Peter H. and Harvey Bialy Responding To "Duesberg and the New View of HIV" SUMERIA, June 27, 1995

Research essay sample on Does Hiv Cause Aids The Controversy