22 I CHRONICLESnadditional funds for medical research.nThis is only a brief overview of the extremes of policynresponses to AIDS, which does not remotely exhaust ournapproaches. The options between these two poles arennumerous and are largely put forth by serious people. Butnour concerns here should be less the issue of AIDS than thenproblems which constantly, consecutively, and unpredictablynbeset the world of public policy. Indeed, it might benwiser to speak of the many worlds of public policy, since onnan issue like AIDS, policy involves legislative supports,nexecutive orders, judicial decisions, voluntary actions,nand/or local agency funds. For, built into the structure ofnpolicy, invariably subjecting specific recommendations toncriticism and correction, is the multiplicity of levels of effortnaimed at addressing a single specific problem. What cannsocial science contribute to this environment in whichndissension rather than consensus prevails, and in whichngood and honest people come to resolute and seeminglyncontradictory conclusions. For on a subject like AIDS,nthough there is broad agreement on the existence ofnwidening contagion, what is missing is consensus on what, ifnanything, anyone should do to limit or overcome thenproblem.nRichard Berk, in a recent provocative article in thenAmerican Sociologist, notes that there are currentiy nonexperts on the long-range social consequences of AIDS. Henproposes that social research produce experts, develop ancrash program in social projections, and come up with thennntools for such projections, all in short order, given thenacceleration of the AIDS epidemic; and finally, achieve allnthis in the context of big science (i.e., many researchersnfrom different fields working with large budgets, or at leastnwith minimal fiscal constraints).nThis would entail subjecting all efforts at policy tonempirical scrutiny — that is, examining the scientific, political,nand moral obstacles to new policy. Again, what followsnby no means exhausts the information available. But it doesnpresent a way of handling policy beyond the pure optimismnof expecting to change existential reality and the equallynundiluted pessimism in which prudence and natural lawsnare wielded like clubs.nSince so much has been made of preventive medicine, atnleast during an interim in which “cures” are simply unavailablen(if indeed attainable at all), it is fair to limit our concernnto the impact of condoms on the AIDS population. Whilenthere is little doubt about the prophylactic properties ofncondoms, and their capacity to reduce the spread of AIDSnwithin homosexual populations, especially when used togethernwith spermicides, serious questions remain.nAmong the concerns raised are the following: (1) amongnthe sample batches tested, the Food and Drug Administrationnfound that 20 percent of the latex condoms failed waternleakage tests. This failure of 41 of 204 batches exceedednagency standards; (2) the failure rate for imported condomsnis significantly higher than for domestic brands; (3) latexncondoms are less subject to microscopic damage thannnatural condoms made of lambs’ intestines. Further, beyondnthe character of contraceptive devices are the humannelements: (4) anal intercourse is far more traumatic thannvaginal intercourse, hence the wear and tear on condoms isnmuch higher; (5) the potential for transmitting AIDS isnhigher than pregnancy rates because women are fertile onlyna few days each month, whereas the AIDS virus apparentlyncan be spread all the time.nScientific studies of the effects of condom use in AIDSnprevention are rare, given the ethical questions aboutnestablishing control groups in experimental situations. Butnin one survey of AIDS patients and their uninfectednheterosexual partners, it was found that two of 12 whonclaimed to regularly use condoms became infected withnAIDS. Without doubting the prophylactic values of condoms,ntherefore, the belief that a macro-policy can be builtnupon condoms is obviously dubious. Beyond all suchnconcerns is the problem that the very belief in condomneffectiveness may actually increase homosexual activity, andnthus partially offset the very prophylactic values currentlynbeing relied upon.nRather than speak of political processes in general, fornpresent purposes it might be best simply to restrict ourndiscussion to public opinion surveys. The making of policynunder dissensus is far more troublesome than under consensualnconditions. And while 78 percent of Americans saidnthat AIDS sufferers should be treated with compassion,nonce the Gallup poll became more precisely worded, thenactual gap in sentiment was seen as quite substantial.nWhile 48 percent of those polled said AIDS victimsnshould be allowed to live in the community unimpeded, 29npercent disagreed. On the issue of jobs, 33 percent said thatnemployers should be permitted to dismiss those infectedn