To address questions of scientific responsibility does not necessarily imply that one needs technical competence in a particular field (e.g. biology) to evaluate certain technical matters.

Of course, screening for HIV did essentially eliminate the transmission of this virus by transfusions.

Originally, in the early eighties, the drug hypothesis was among the first which occurred to scientists.

Questions have also arisen about AIDS being transmitted to hemophiliacs via blood transfusions.

Axiomatization is what one does last, it's rubbish. It's the hygiene of mathematics, axiomatization.

I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.

I object to a legal approach when settling questions of science or scientific behavior.