cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) (04/19/91)
> I have a question. While I think it is great you are helping with the planning > committee and all, I don't quite understand why specifically these groups you > pointed out [PWAs, ethnic minorites, women] need to be represented in the > first 3 tracks [basic science, clincal, epidemiology]. I suppose the Clinical > track might make sense if you considered contextual issues in clinical work > on AIDS. However, I don't follow it for Basic Science and Epidemiology. > Perhaps these tracks aren't quite what I think they are. I perceive these to > be highly technical discussions in the scientific vein. Unless one is involved > in the actual scientific work as a researcher, I don't know why one should > participate such tracks. Well, I know a lot of scientists disagree, but I think that the people most directly affected by AIDS should have a role. Too often researchers and scientist lose touch with the issues most relevant to those they are trying to help. The idea of having PWAs, etc. on the tracks is not to replace scientists (scientists will make up the majority of the committees), but rather to allow for diverse input. For example, the manifestations of HIV infection in women were pretty much ignored for a long time until enough women starting demanding attention be paid; now researchers, the NIH, etc. are focusing much more on women's HIV-related diseases, and many acknowledge that this should have been done sooner. Scientists sometimes seem to ``get lost'' in their work unless someone is there to emphasize the connections to the world outside the laboratory. I suppose non-scientists wouldn't have too much use in the basic science track, except perhaps a ``watchdog'' or two. Clinical issues should certainly be considered in the context of who is being treated, what is their access to treatment. etc. Epidemiology studies who gets the disease and how it acts in different populations. People who belong to these populations, and those who work with them directly, would seem to have the best understanding of these populations. No matter how good the field research of a scientist studying, say, HIV spread among IV drug users, I think a great deal can contributed by former addicts themselves. There are things members of a certain population are likely to know, and errors they are likely to spot, that a scientist who is not a member of said population may well miss. > (Also, as a so-called "person of colour", I would really prefer if you used the > term ethnic minority or racial minority or something like that. I really > dislike the term "people of colour". I will certainly refer to you as such if you prefer. Most of the ethnic minority people I know do not like "minority" *at all*, and much prefer "people of color". How confusing! -Liz