Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In 1984, overzealous scientists proclaimed they would develop an AIDS vaccine in a mere two years. Now, 16 years later, researchers are still battling the bureaucracy and each other to decide which potential vaccines should be tested and who should pay for the testing. Although Cohen, a veteran science writer (who presently writes for Talk magazine) originally intended to document one year of the vaccine search effort, he quickly realized that "one year doesn't mean anything to AIDS vaccine researchers." Because of a lack of leadership, organization, funding and urgency, it may take a year for some scientists just to raise enough funding to subsidize their work. As Cohen notes, many of the major pharmaceutical companiesAfrightened by the liabilities and low profit margins of vaccine researchAhave pulled out, leaving scientists to vie for limited government support. Unfortunately, the researchers controlling the federal purse strings, though distinguished, often harbor conventional views about how to approach vaccine research. Therefore, innovative approaches, such as engineering or deleting viral proteins and genes, are often disregarded as either too elaborate or too risky to warrant funding. The competition for grants promotes rivalry among scientists, a rivalry that Clinton hoped to quell when he announced his vision of a "Manhattan Project" for AIDS in 1992. Although the project never materialized, there has been a recent increase in federal funding for AIDS research that Cohen hopes will inspire the testing of promising vaccines. An insightful glimpse of a fractured but important process, this highly readable, thorough account may engage and spur AIDS activists and scientists to form a united front against a pervasive disease. 8 pages of photos not seen by PW. First serial to The Sciences; 5-city author tour.
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

While popular fear and urgency has declined since the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the success of various treatments in improving the quality and duration of the lives of AIDS patients may only have lulled the public into a false sense of security. Already there is evidence that the virus has developed resistance to certain drugs, and in many parts of the world it still rages unchecked. Ten years ago, science reporter Cohen (Science and Talk magazines) began this book intending to document the story of the discovery of an AIDS cure. Today, his story is instead a chronicle of the failure to do so, owing to a combination of bad scientific research, haphazard leadership, and obstructive political and economic agendas. The author's exhaustive sources include scientific literature, company reports, and hundreds of personal interviews. Despite this book's harsh criticisms, Cohen's purpose is not to muckrake but to issue a wakeup call. This engaging story with a vital message is recommended for all libraries.DGregg Sapp, SUNY at Albany Science Lib.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 384 pages
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition (January 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393050270
• ISBN-13: 978-0393050271
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.2 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.7 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,186,325 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Search for an AIDS vaccine, February 8, 2001

By	Joan MacMaster "be881" (Chatsworth, California USA) - See all my reviews

Jon Cohen has written an absolutely masterful history of the search for an Aids vaccine. His book poses all the right questions. He explores all the political and scientific issues that have affected this long journey to a vaccine. His research is exhaustive and the book is well documented. It reads as the very best kind of scientific adventure tale. It is the best account that I have read about this disease and the people who have tried to unravel its mysteries.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent, readable overview of vaccine research, December 18, 2002

By	Richard A. Jenkins "Richard A. Jenkins" (Washington, DC USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Jon Cohen is probably the most knowledgable journalist on the topic of HIV vaccines and has been following developments in this area for over a decade. He's had unparalleled access to people working in the field and it shows in this well organized history of the search for an HIV vaccine. I used to work in this area of research and, although there are issues where I have quibbled with the author, I can think of no better introduction to the field and the key issues that have shaped it. Cohen has been uniquely able to maintain the trust and respect of key people working in the field, while also raising important social and scientific issues. The result is a thoughtful, relatively thorough chronology that is also readable and concise. At a more personal level, the book brought back many forgotten controversies and issues that formed the background for almost a decade of my own work. The writing is that vivid, while also maintaining a high standard of scientific journalism.

4 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Now for the bad news, July 8, 2005

By	Rick Bogle (Madison, WI United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine (Paperback)

Reviewers of Jon Cohen's Shots in the Dark have uniformly praised his insight and investigation into the world of HIV/AIDS research. His careful accounting has exposed weaknesses of the American national biomedical research endeavor led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Few if any reviewers have commented on the veracity of his conclusion. HIV/AIDS research is a political hot potato.

But one thing that should be obvious to most readers is that two decades of trying to model HIV with a different disease in a species not normally infected with the experimental disease, has been an abject, costly, and misleading failure. Cohen's response is a strident call for more, much much more, of the same.

Human immunodeficiency virus is a retrovirus that causes disease only in humans. It is a species-specific disease. Chimpanzees infected with HIV display very mild transient symptoms. Nothing regarding HIV infection in humans or in the treatment of AIDS has been a result of the use of chimpanzees. This has been acknowledged by leading primate researchers such as Dr. Thomas Insel, past director of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University and now director of the National Institute of Mental Health.

Sooty mangabeys, an African monkey, are natural carriers of a disease called simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV). In spite of the similar name, HIV and SIV are caused by different viruses. When macaques, an Asian genus of monkey, are infected with a serially-passaged SIV, they become terminally ill. They develop chronic nosebleeds, diarrhea, and anorexia as they progress to morbidity.

This fact was discovered when the poor husbandry methods of the nation's NIH monkey labs inadvertently allowed the wide-spread infection of macaques with SIV. The disease was identified when primate researchers read about the symptoms of HIV. Always on the lookout for a new moneymaking animal model, the primate research community quickly claimed that the newly discovered disease would be a productive model of HIV.

Many hundreds of millions of dollars later, they are still asking the American taxpayer to be patient and to give them more money to kill many more monkeys.

In light of the fact that everything known about AIDS and how to treat the disease has been a direct result of human cell studies, clinical studies, and epidemiological research, it is difficult to understand why Cohen still stands with the monkey researchers and urges more money be shoveled into this black hole of proven failure. The only answer I can imagine is that he is just enamored with anything that looks like science.

Readers unfamiliar with the history of the failure of the monkey and chimpanzee models are likely to come away from Shots in the Dark with a very wrong-headed idea of how we ought to be spending our finite resources to stop this pandemic. To this extent, the book is dangerous and likely to have negative consequences if decision makers take Cohen's recommendations to heart.

In spite of this, as a historical accounting, I found the book to worthwhile.