The Problem of AIDS in And the Band Played On - Movie Review Example

25 March The Economics and Politics of AIDS During the early 1980s, the Gay Man’s Disease, which was soon called “GRID” or Gay Related Immunodeficiency, had killed hundreds, and after a few years, thousands of people, and not all of them were gay. It took only two years to discover what was causing it after the first cases occurred in the United States in 1981. The discovery of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), however, is fraught with multitude of problems, because it was first known as the gay people’s disease, which stigmatized it enough to not have enough attention from mainstream media and politicians. One movie, nevertheless, tackles the truth about how AIDS has been discovered and how scientists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) faced political challenges. And the Band Played On, which is directed by Roger Spottiswoode and written by investigative journalist Randy Shilts, depicts the history of AIDS discover in the U.S. This film demonstrates the economics and politics of AIDS, which has pitted inhumanity against humanity, where anger can be directed toward politicians, corporations, and even doctors and scientists, who ignored an epidemic, because they pursued their personal interests first, and made the public welfare the last of their concerns. The intellectual reaction to the film is that it has covered some of the most controversial issues of the scientific industry- the battle for the discovery of AIDS- which indicates that the academe is not free from hubris, a purely subjective attitude that will shame the scientific community, through manifesting the fallibility of humanity. The film shows how Dr. Robert Gallo, discoverer of the first human Retrovirus (HTLV), has first sidestepped the Gay Man’s Disease, while the Pasteur Institute in Paris, led by Luc Montagnier, was shown as displaying keen interest on the retrovirus. Gallo’s personality is exposed as chauvinistic and opportunistic. It seems that he did not focus on the Gay Man’s Disease initially, because it did not seem a promising venture that will give him public fame. The Pasteur Institute in Paris, however, was already interested in the virus, since it was already affecting homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. In France, involved doctors did not see the issue as a “homosexual” one, and so they were not limited in their thinking about the origins, diffusion channels, and effects of the retrovirus. In the U.S., on the contrary, the virus was already labeled as homosexual, which brought about emotional and moral outbursts. The result was a widespread stigmatization of the virus that prevented Dr. Don Francis of the CDC from getting the funding he needed to study it further. He tried to ask for Gallo’s help through his Harvard professor, but the latter provided minor attention on it. In short, the virus was snubbed. Only when dead bodies have piled enough to warrant research did Gallo became interested in studying it. Gallo knew that if he connected this new virus with his HTLV, he would get the Nobel Prize. His primary motivation, as shown in the film, is public and scientific recognition. The film depicts that the scientific community is not composed of ideal scholars like Dr. Francis. It is actually often led by narcissistic, and yet well-admired, scientists like Dr. Gallo. Another intellectual reaction is the concerned assessment of who the discoverer of AIDS truly is. Gallo has been informed first about the virus through the CDC, but the French team in The Pasteur Institute in Paris was also conducting their independent research too. On this point, it seems that Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Gallo can be considered as the co-discoverers of AIDS. The film shows, however, that Dr. Gallo conducted professional misconduct when he took the French team’s lymphadenopathy associated virus (LAV) and posted it has his own virus in a scientific journal. In effect, Dr. Gallo conducted plagiarism; he stole the work of others and wanted to profit from it. This is illegal and unethical. One cannot just steal someone’s cultured cells and publish it as his/her own. That action violates intellectual property rights. At the same time, it is unethical to plagiarize, because Dr. Gallo stole something that he did not discover on his own. He is stealing credit from whoever credit is due. This film does not directly stress who discovered AIDS, but it did provide convincing proof that Dr. Luc Montagnier should be credited as the father of AIDS. His team discovered AIDS first, “fair and square,” as far as cliches go. They gave AIDS the proper attention and dedication it deserved, something it did not get from American scientists like Dr. Gallo, if not without enough media coverage on it. The personal reaction to this film is filled with anger for the system that neglected to address AIDS, because it has been first related to homosexuals; another reaction is empathy to all the victims of AIDS. This anger is directed to all individuals and organizations that treated AIDS like it did not exist, only because homosexuals are not seen as human beings. First, anger is felt for the government that reinforced the stigmatization of homosexuals by not supporting and funding Dr. Francis’ research. The Reagan government could not even buy an electron microscope for Francis’ lab, and yet it was willing to spend more money on its defense department. This shows that the government was more concerned of its defense system than the health of its own people. Bureaucratic scientists also deserve anger. They are preserving the status quo by not challenging and changing it from within. They are also serving their own interests, because they get to preserve their jobs, since they are not angering their superiors. Nevertheless, they cannot be called as public servants, because they serve only their interests, especially their own wallets. Second, anger is also felt for the society that made gay people invisible, thereby making AIDS research invisible too. Homophobic people were so angry with homosexuals that they neglected accepting that these latter are human beings too. Moralists were concerned of the sexual preferences and practices of the gay people, but they were not concerned if these gay people died from an epidemic disease. They only cared when other non-gay people were affected by the disease. If only society treated gay people as human beings, they would have strongly called for research when AIDS started showing up. If only society cared more for all kinds of people, AIDS should have gotten the proper funding and attention it deserved. The film illustrates how inhumane people can be, and because of this inhumanity, the whole humanity paid the price. Third, anger is also directed at corporations, especially blood banks corporations, who disregarded calls to have their donors checked for Hepatitis B. They thought of the costs of the tests first, before considering the costs of lost human lives. These representatives of these companies are even doctors. As one person comments: “When doctors start acting like businessmen who can people turn to for doctors?” Doctors should serve the public interest and not the cost-efficient concerns of their firms. These companies also forgot what they stood for: blood banks should save lives, not threaten and end it. Fourth, it cannot be helped to feel anger at Dr. Gallo for putting his ego first before the public interest. From his reported actions in the film, it is clear that he stole the virus from the French to get the Nobel Prize. He is an example of an unethical scientist whose actions should not be followed by his peers. Empathy for the victims of AIDS is also strongly felt. These victims are gay people who are not aware that they have the disease and that they are spreading it with their bodily fluids. They only wanted to be free people, and yet they died because society did not care enough for their welfare. Other victims are the blood recipients, who wanted to extend their lives, but only threatened it further, by accepting blood from AIDS donors. They are innocent of what is happening, and yet they paid the price with their lives. This movie leaves people feeling empathy for these people who sacrificed their lives, so that the government and corporations will be satisfied of the “numbers” game, before doing any form of concrete solution and preventive measure to stop AIDS. The dominant voices in this story come from three parties: the victims, the people who care, and the people who do not care. Victims like Bobbi Campbell give face to people who want to be free in expressing their gender, but died because the government and scientific community did not give enough attention to AIDS research. Their voices, however, are often stifled, because the society does not recognize them as human beings. In Campbell’s word, they are “freaks” and freaks do not get taxpayers’ money for researching diseases that afflict them. The people who care are Dr. Francis and his team. His team acted like investigative journalists and public relations people who had to work using their own money and time, so that they can uncover the truth about AIDS. For instance, one of the scientists had to use his own money to prove that AIDS is a sexually-transmitted disease. He had to interview several gay people, before he comes across one of the causes of the group, a sexually active gay person, also called as Patient Zero in the film. Dr. Francis, in particular, is shown as someone who has witnessed too many senseless deaths due to the Ebola virus, which pushes him to stop the spread of AIDS, even without enough hard empirical evidence. The problem with empirical evidence is that it will take time to get it and Dr. Francis felt that the public should be forewarned early. He also poured his soul into this research, because he wanted to prevent the same impacts of the Ebola virus, which AIDS is producing- thousands of dead people who do not even know that they have the disease. Finally, the voices of politicians and corporate doctors are also present. They are the ones using “empirical evidence” as a justification to compromise public health. Politicians do not want to fund the CDC research on AIDS, while blood companies find it not cost-efficient to test blood donors. They keep on looking for hard evidence for AIDS, and it was easy for them, because none of them were afflicted by the disease yet. None of them, hence, values human life; they are only concerned of their own pockets or the number of votes they will get from their citizens. This film is a credible academic source, because it traced the origins of research on the AIDS virus during its discovery years. It may seem unfair to people like Gallo and Reagan, who might say that the film is prejudiced against them, because it did show them as pompous, powerful individuals who did not use their resources and influence to stop AIDS. Nevertheless, the film brushes aside the curtain and exposes the economics and politics of AIDS research. The film reveals the truth that scientists do not exist in a vacuum. They need funding. They require political and social support and acknowledgement. And some scientists need public fame and academic recognition too badly that they will steal cultured cells from France to get a chance of winning the Nobel Prize. This film is a documentary of the early years of AIDS discovery. It does not mince reality; it shows it as it is, with science in the middle of its socio-economic, cultural, and political context. And the Band Played On shows that the earnest efforts of scientists who truly care for the public welfare cannot be stopped. They might lack funding or political power, but they found ways to promote the public interest. They were frazzled by thousands of death due to AIDS, but they persevered. They were scientists with hearts. The main message of this film is do not let money, or fame, interfere with the truth and the noble goal of preserving the public interest. The band will play on and it should be the band that plays for the people. Work Cited And the Band Played On. Dir. Roger Spottiswoode. Perf. Matthew Modine, Alan Alda, and Patrick Bauchau. USA, 1993. Film. Read More