F. Raub, director or the NIH, says that the money may not go where it will be evenly distributed if it is re-allocated; the government may put the money to another use altogether (Freundlich 535). Both Freundlich and Fumento agree that there is not enough money spent on health care in the first place, and research is becoming more and more expensive. Thurman, however, says that Congress is doing the best it can to keep money going to where it is needed most, but with AIDS being only one third in the United States, it is hard to keep track of what is needed worldwide. (Thurman 1) I feel that both Freundlich and Fumento are trying to blame government spending on small funding for disease, but I have to side with Thurman. The government has more to worry about that a couple of diseases that we know a great deal about and a new one that we are slowly taking control of. Plus, even if we do get it under control here, it doesn't stop the rest of the world from battling the epidemic.All in all, each writer brings up good points defending their argument. AIDS is an important topic and should not be looked over, but it should not be blown out of proportion, as Fumento believes. Money, research, and death counts are all very important subjects to be considered when discussing federal budgeting for medical research. Scientists should be prepared however, for new and upcoming diseases such as AIDS, so our society does not have to face another deadly epidemic like we had to do so long ago when there was not much medical research.I believe that each author has provided sufficient evidence to pursuade a reader to side with her or his view, however I feel that Fumento is correct that AIDS research is slightly out of control and needs to be somewhat tamed. Although Fumento thinks that the money needs to be spent on research to heart disease and cancer, I feel that heart disease and cancer should not be so heavily studied as much as we used to. We ...
