Rules on AIDS Fuel Boycott of Conference : Research: U.S. entrance restrictions on foreigners infected with the virus have sparked a movement that could cripple the Sixth International Conference on AIDS in San Francisco in June.

An international clamor over U.S. entrance restrictions on foreigners infected with the AIDS virus is fueling a growing movement to boycott the Sixth International Conference on AIDS, risking embarrassment for the United States and possibly setting back the global battle against the epidemic.

Conference officials expressed fear that several thousand participants might take part in the boycott. Health ministries in France, Switzerland and the tiny African nation of Cape Verde have already told the U.S. State Department that they will not send official delegations to the conference, scheduled to be held in June in San Francisco, unless the restrictions are eliminated or substantially modified. The International League of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies have also withdrawn.

And in what would be an even greater blow to the gathering, human immunodeficiency virus discoverer Dr. Luc Montagnier told The Times this week that he is “very preoccupied” with the issue and may heed a resolution of the European Parliament passed in January calling on all European scientists not to participate.

“I hope I do not have to (stay away), because the research is moving forward rapidly and we have some important results we would like to announce in San Francisco,” said Montagnier, who heads the viral oncology unit at the Institut Pasteur in Paris.

“As scientists and doctors, we know there is no medical justification for the restrictions: That there is no risk to the American public of casual transmission of the virus.”

U.S. law now bars foreigners with “dangerous contagious diseases” from entering the country but allows people to apply for waivers under certain circumstances. In 1987, Congress added HIV to the list of such diseases in an amendment offered by Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) and enacted overwhelmingly.

The Administration has attempted to mollify critics of the policy by creating relatively simple procedures for HIV-infected foreigners to obtain waivers, but opponents of the restrictions remain unsatisfied. They argue that the waiver requirement is demeaning, medically unjustified and might subject infected people to discrimination in their home countries.

AIDS scientists and activists are calling on Congress and the Bush Administration to do away with all travel restrictions on HIV-infected visitors.

Organizers had originally planned to welcome up to 14,000 scientists, doctors, policy-makers and other AIDS workers, plus another 2,000 journalists, but conference spokesman Dana Van Gorder said: “I think we could lose thousands of registrants over this.”

To date, almost all of the reservations for booth space at the conference have been made by Americans.

Dr. June Osborn, chairman of the National Commission on AIDS, said a crippled conference will hurt international efforts to control the epidemic, which suffered another blow earlier last week when Dr. Jonathan Mann resigned as head of the World Health Organization’s Global Program on AIDS.

Osborn said she was not surprised by the solidarity between scientists and HIV-infected individuals. “That solidarity has been a vehicle for a lot of the creative innovation we have seen in this epidemic,” she said.

“It is a real shame that a gathering of this importance is being held hostage by a policy that is without public-health foundation,” said Dr. Paul Volberding, head of AIDS activities at San Francisco General Hospital and a conference co-chairman. “We feel caught in the middle by a policy we didn’t create and don’t support jeopardizing a meeting that is vitally important in the fight against AIDS.”

Volberding, after months of quiet lobbying, said he decided to speak out now because lobbyists had made little headway while momentum for the boycott was building. “People in developing nations need to make their travel plans well in advance,” he added, “and if we don’t get some movement soon a lot of them will not be here.”

“I don’t think the White House understands the political embarrassment it is going to suffer if the regulations aren’t changed, and fast,” added Alan Fein, executive director of Harvard University’s newly created AIDS Institute. His view was echoed by a medical officer at the U.S. Department of State, which, with the Department of Health and Human Services, has been pressing for a change of policy within the Administration.

Sources said Harvard President Derek C. Bok has even entered the fray, personally telephoning Atty. Gen. Richard L. Thornburgh to appeal for a change in policy, because Boston has been selected as the site of the 1992 International AIDS Conference. The International AIDS Society said this month that it will pull the meeting out of Boston unless the U.S. restrictions are changed.

“The Administration has done all that lies within its authority to accommodate the travel needs of HIV-infected people who are coming to the conference,” said Alixe Glen, White House deputy press secretary. “This concern should be addressed to Congress.”

The Administration’s remedies to date include assurances of confidentiality to people applying for waivers. U.S. consulates abroad have also been authorized to issue HIV-waivers on a separate document--rather than stamping it on the individual’s passport--to further enhance privacy.

While conference organizers’ hopes for an administrative solution are diminishing, the prospects for rapid congressional action are uncertain. Helms aide Eric Lundgren said the senator “would actively oppose a modification” of the law.

And Steve Morin, an aide to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) who is seeking either an administrative or legislative remedy so that the conference can move forward, said that a quick congressional move is unlikely.

“Nothing is going to happen unless it is done jointly and cooperatively between Congress and the Administration,” Morin said. One possible legislative solution, he said, would be to give the U.S. Public Health Service the power to draw up the list of diseases for which foreigners could be excluded. PHS officials have already publicly stated that there is no medical justification for excluding visiting HIV carriers.