This antibody, however it was created, will now be a good starting point for tweaking and improvement. Hopefully, it can be made to be effective against 100% (or as close as possible) of the HIV variants.
> On the other hand, the antibody would never have been noticed if we hadn't been spending all this money on research.
Indeed. But, even though he is a homosexual man, the gene would likely be passed along eventually, and run its course through the human race (if we believe Darwin). We just don't want to wait that long.
note: it would be passed one of a few ways:
1) his ancestors also had the gene, and he's not the only one to get it. He has heterosexual relatives who will pass it along, and they simply weren't found for one reason or another.
2) he wavers in his homosexuality, and passes his gene along to a few women OR he is bisexual
3) he donates sperm
4) it happens again in a heterosexual person. This gene arose in something like 30-40 years (I'm not really sure just how many) since the beginning of AIDS, which is an evolutionary blink. I think it's not unreasonable to figure it would arise again, and that it wouldn't take a bajillion years
I don't think the gene arose in 40 years. Obviously it didn't, since the man is more than 40 years old. Instead, I think it's a gene that arose via happenstance and is suddenly much more useful.
Still, the fact that it was already floating around I feel proves my point even more. If the disease ravaged us for hundreds of centuries before this cropped up, THEN it'd be pretty reasonable to say it's highly unlikely to develop again anytime soon.
Seriously: Is the distinction that relevant?