Since the AIDS epidemic began, researchers have been working to develop a vaccine to immunize people against a disease that afflicts 30 million people worldwide. Dr. Donald Francis, the first to warn of the epidemic in the 1980s, has been one of the most determined scientists. After many years of work in a private company, he has developed a vaccine that is aimed at two of the most common strains of the virus.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has recently allowed a large-scale testing of Dr. Francis's vaccine for AIDS. The vaccine, called Aidsvax, works by generating antibodies that would allow the immune system to fight the AIDS virus. It may not work, however, and such a large test will expose many people to the virus.

For years Frank Irving read about AIDS. Ever since his younger brother, Philip, died of the disease two years ago he wished he could do something to help. He had no real scientific training or education, however, and felt useless. Then, after reading about the new trials for the vaccine developed by Dr. Francis, he had an idea. He would volunteer to try the vaccine. He was healthy, had none of the risk factors for the disease, and had been tested every six months since his brother died.

Frank read all the articles he could get his hands on. In one article a very famous scientist, David Baltimore, said he had reservations about the trials. He felt they were a long shot, and that having such a huge trial, 5,000 people in the United States and 2,500 in Thailand, was premature and might reduce the number of people willing to participate in future trials.

Other researchers believe that a traditional vaccine, such as Francis's vaccine, cannot protect against HIV, since this virus constantly mutates and a combination of drugs is necessary to combat it.

Frank didn't care-he wanted to help. He knew that only healthy men and women could volunteer to test a vaccine, those unaffected by the HIV virus. He wanted to be one.

1. What should Frank do?
2. There are those who say that if the vaccine is only partially effective, it would help a great number of people and then be perfected later. Is this an acceptable procedure? Why or why not?
3. Some critics say that if a private company develops a vaccine for HIV, it will make billions of dollars and not worry about who gets the vaccine. But after spending millions of research and development, doesn't a company have a right to make a great deal of money? Why or why not?
4. How should volunteers be picked?
5. In many tests, a control group is selected who do not get the vaccine. Volunteers don't know whether or not they get the vaccine. Should this change Frank's decision? Why or why not?