LINIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO

,._. ......._,

i

SANTA BARBARA * SANTA CRUZ

.......... .

SCkI 00 L 0 1; M El) IC IN I:
Ikpartment of Microhiologv
  atid Imniunoltipy

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94143

April 26, 1985

Dr. J. Michael Bishop
Director, Hooper Foundation
HSW 1542

Dear Mike:

As Chairman of the Retrovirus Study Group of the ICTV,  I have recently
assembled a group of retrovirologists to find a suitable species name
for the group of retrovirus isolates believed likely to represent the
causative agents of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
All members of the committee have been asked to make and solicit
specific proposals, but I am writing to you, as one of the leaders in
the field of animal virology, either to make a formal proposal
(according to the enclosed guidelines) or to express your opinions
about the some of the issues that have been raiad.

In particular, are there names for this group of viruses that you find
particularly inappropriate, and why?
term lsAIDSw in the name would present serious problems with respect to
patient-physician relations or the establishment of cause?
how would those problems differ from those posed by the use of the
term vtpoliol* in poliovirus?)
potentially confusing abbreviations (e .g., "HAP for 'human AIDS
virus" and 'hepatitis A virus')?  What taxonomic and other features do
you feel are most compelling in the design of a species name?  Should
names as complex as human T cell lymphotrophic III/lymphadenopathy
virus (HTLV-III/LAV) be allowed? Would they be used? Do you feel a
compelling consensus for any single name has already been reached
among virologists, clinicians or laymen?

Do you believe that use of the

(If so,

How important is it to avoid any

Be assured that any comments you can forward to me on these topics
before May 15th will be distributed to our members and helpful in our
deliberations.

Siqcerely ,

Harold E. Varmus, M.D.
American Cancer Society
Professor of Molecular Virology

HEV/ jm
Enclosures