HPV is a virus that can seem latent, but can become cancerous almost under the radar. It has a huge prevalence in our general population, and thus, it has captured the attention of laypeople and the scientific community alike. However, there are several strains of HPV, and due to financial reasons, it would be nearly impossible to develop vaccines for all of them. Thus, using statistical analyses, we have to determine which strains our population would benefit the most from regarding vaccination against those strains.
From the data presented by Sarid and Gao in “Viruses and Human Cancer: From Detection to Causality”, we can break down the association between certain strains of HPV and cervical cancer. It was shown that 80% of cervical cancers in which HPV is involved are caused by only four strains. The remaining 20% of cases are caused by a great many other strains. However, 20% is still a large portion of the population, so would it be ethical to consider not developing vaccines for the HPV strains that are involved in this percentage of cervical cancers?
In my opinion, no it wouldn’t be. However, in order the save the greatest number of lives with the resources we have, we should develop vaccines for the four strains that cause 80% of HPV related cervical cancers FIRST. Then, provided that there are enough resources to be allocated to this cause, vaccines should be developed for the other HPV strains responsible for the 20% of HPV related cervical cancers. This utilitarian ideology seems dark as we are essentially disregarding those people affected by the other HPV strains, but its hard to argue that saving the greatest number of lives isn’t the best move.
Thus I believe that the HPV strains that vaccines should be developed for are strains 16, 18, 31, and 35, as these are the strains responsible for 80% of all HPV related cervical cancers, as shows in the article by Sarid and Gao.
