re larger, it still effects people that are coming to the end of an average life span anyway. AIDS on the other hand, is killing people that still have her or his whole life left to live. I think they shouldn't worry about how many its killing, but whom it's killing.Death count is not the only thing to worry about in this issue, but the loss of researchers from other fields is taken into consideration as well. Let's face it-there are not enough people qualified to study medicine and disease, or this whole issue would not be a problem. Fumento explains that the number of scientists and researchers used in AIDS research is far too large, and to fill that quota researchers are taken from other fields, like heart disease and cancer, and put them into the AIDS field. This once again leaves other things short handed, while AIDS gets whatever it needs. Also, he points out that the ratio of patient cost alone is extremely out of proportion to other diseases. For example, "cancer and heart disease expenditures will be equal to under 5 percent of patient cost, and AIDS research funding will be about 230 percent greater than patient costs this year"(Fumento 530). This basically means that they are spending a great deal of unnecessary money on AIDS. Freundlich, on the other hand, says that not only does the added AIDS research help AIDS patients and technology, but also provides valuable benefits in public health, epidemiology, and basic science. AIDS research helps us learn about the body's immune system, which plays an important part in cancer treatment. I agree with Freundlich here, but the extremely large amount that is spent is not necessary, and could be toned down a little. So why not balance the money evenly so everyone gets her or his own equal share? Well, it's not that simple; first of all, there is not enough money to go around to maintain all of the current studies in each field. Secondly, Freundlich mentions that William ...
