| Chem 432 |
|
Spring 2002 |
|
|
||
|
Discussion Topic: Success and failure in AIDS vaccine models. Read the news and views summary by Lifson and Martin and the articles by J. W. Shiver et. al. on a vaccine providing "effective anti-immunodeficiency-virus immunity" and D. H. Barouch et. al. on "AIDS vaccine failure" in Nature 415 (17 January 2002).*
- What are the two common strategies for vaccines against viruses?
- What are the advantages of each strategy?
- In each case, if these strategies have failed in the past, explain why.
- In what sense has the work of Shiver et. al. demonstrated an effective vaccine strategy?
- Does this work indicate a potential path for future success in creating an effective human vaccine?
- In what way might such a vaccine, assuming the human version followed the model, be most effectively deployed to both contain AIDS and to help individual patients?
- Are these two aims synergistic, or in some opposition?
- How does the work reported by Barouch et. al. impact the developments reported by Shiver et. al.?
- What does this article say about the AIDS infection and controlling it via vaccines?
- How did the virus respond to the vaccine?
- What was the final result of the vaccination for the course of the disease?
- Does the work reported by Barouch et. al. pretty much destroy the hope offered by Shiver et. al.?
- Why or why not?
- What problems does the infection/disease progress model used by these groups have for developing a vaccine for human AIDS?
* This issue of Nature should be available on the shelf, but will also be available on reserve this week.
![]() |
Last modified 7 April 2002