Vice President Al Gore discusses anthrax vaccine

Army Times Publishing Company

April 11, 2000

Interviewer: If we could shift gears for just a moment. I am wondering if you think the anthrax vaccinations should remain mandatory? And if so, what do you think the proper punishment is for the people who decline to take the shots?

MR. GORE: I think that for people who are assigned to high-risk areas, the military is justified in making it mandatory. I think that the handling of punishments for those who refuse probably needs to be looked at in light of some of the questions that have been raised by people who have gotten into these conflicts. I generally side with the brass on this, but I think that some increased sensitivity to the kinds of questions that are being raised is needed. I don't go so far as to say they should not make it mandatory for employment in high-risk areas, I think it should be.

Interviewer: For people deploying to areas of lesser risk that it need not be required?

MR. GORE: I don't feel qualified to make that judgment. I would say that that is one of the areas where sensitivity should be dolloped out. But I defer to the medical experts on that. I think the definition of high risk ought to be up to the people who know what they are talking about.

Interviewer: Would you support suspending the program until more science is completed?

MR. GORE: I would not support suspending the requirement that shots be required for deployment to high-risk areas. But a careful evaluation of the questions that have been raised, I think, is appropriate.

Interviewer: But it is a little unclear. You are leaving a hole there because the plan is to have everybody inoculated, not just those going to high-risk areas - to have everyone given the shots over a certain period of time.

MR. GORE: Are you including me?

Interviewer: If you were wearing a uniform it would include you. So we take it you have not taken your shot?

MR. GORE: No, and I have no intention! (laughter)

Interviewer: Are you intentionally leaving a hole there for people who are not first-deployers, that they don't need one or…

MR. GORE: I am trying to say that I think the questions merit careful analysis. It may merit the employment of a balancing test that ensures that those deployed to high-risk areas are required to get this protection but may justify a differentiation between those individuals in high-risk areas and those who are not in high-risk areas. I defer to the medical experts, but from what I know about it I do think that it is worthwhile evaluating these questions and evaluating the feasibility and

advisability of balancing it.

Interviewer: So much of what a private or a sergeant needs is faith and trust that their colonel, their commander in chief hears their concerns. Do you understand the concerns that people have about this inoculation?

MR. GORE: Absolutely. Well, I feel that I do, yes. I feel that the concerns are genuine. I also know that sometimes concerns of this sort are based on confusing data that is hard to interpret. And I understand, having been an enlisted man, that sometimes the degree of certainty that is handed down the chain of command about a matter like this can be … can

seem out of proportion to the real uncertainties that they and their families have when they are on the receiving end.

Again, in the high-risk areas, where the vulnerability of our troops to this threat is palpable and obvious, I think it is clearly justified. Maybe in other areas as well. I am not a medical expert. But based upon the concerns I have heard from military personnel directly, I think we are justified in taking a closer look in whether or not a balancing test might be advisable in the non-risk areas.