Why we still need to fund HIV/AIDS Vaccine Research

On Monday, May 5th the 11th Annual Conference on Vaccine Research will convene in Baltimore, MD. Unlike the International Conference on AIDS, it will meet with little to no fanfare and in all likelihood media coverage will be sparse. This conference differs from so many today because its focus is not the “activist” patient or consumer as so many HIV/AIDS scientific conferences have catered to over the past many years – but a conference for the basic scientist with a venue for discussion of basic science and vaccine research.

A few months ago the world was abuzz with concerns over statements made by some “noted” HIV/AIDS researchers and scientists in regards to the possibility that the world might never see a viable HIV/AIDS vaccine. Their concerns and comments were considered significant when taken into context of yet another recent HIV/AIDS vaccine candidate failure. Response to such negative comments prompted AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) to write an op-ed commending any further use of funds to fund HIV/AIDS vaccine research instead recommending that this money would be and could be better spent on programs such as prevention, education and so forth.

However for many of us, including me, who have been involved in HIV/AIDS research from nearly Day One this rationale was nothing more than defeatist talk. And if the same rationale that AHF was using to argue for the need to stop HIV/AIDS vaccine funding were applied to the success of prevention and education then a lot of AIDS Service Organizations would be out of business; because we all know that prevention and education have not always delivered the positive results that had been expected except for financial benefit to the numerous NGO’s and non-profits.

What most people don’t understand about vaccine research is that little real new and groundbreaking work has been done in the last 50 years. Most, if not all the current HIV/AIDS vaccine research is based on vaccine models from the past, with few scientists looking at novel approaches such Dr Peter Nara and his colleagues’ “Immune Dampening” approach. The other drawback has been that so many of the HIV/AIDS leaders whose opinions are solicited on the progress or lack of progress on the search for a vaccine are not vaccinologists. For example Dr. Baltimore is frequently asked to give his opinion on the state of HIV/AIDS vaccine research, and though he is a brilliant scientist he is neither a vaccinologist nor an expert on vaccine research. For example we wouldn’t ask a cardiologist to speculate on the state of cancer research, even though most people would recognize a cardiologist as an expert in medicine. And time and time again reporters seem insistent on seeking out the opinions of scientists who may be expert in science overall but know little about the nuts and bolts of vaccine research.

The last thing we need to do is stop funding HIV/AIDS vaccine research, this field needs the support of both public and private funds. We also need to get back to basics and promote basic science and the work of the basic scientist. We also need to ensure that wise funding decisions are made, for example the current vaccine failure did not entirely surprise many of us involved in HIV/AIDS. The reason was simple since at least one of the failed vaccine clinical trial’s vaccine was based on a model that many suspected to be flawed at the outset, but there were some individuals in positions of power and influence that chose to ignore the known weaknesses and low chance for success to champion the vaccine. Other supported the idea because, as they explained to me (you wouldn’t believe me if I told you who!), we need experience in large-scale clinical trials, as if we didn’t do this for the phttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifolio or small pox vaccine efforts.

I have always believed that political support of vaccine research is crucial, but I have never supported the politicization of vaccine research. Unfortunately, as so many things related to HIV/AIDS all too often people are more concerned about politicing the process and I think this recent failure is just such an example.

At the end of the day I think we will only gain the upper hand in the fight to find an effective HIV/AIDS vaccine if we first encourage basic scientists (especially vaccinologists) to be even more involved; second spend the money supporting HIV/AIDS vaccine candidates that are scientifically sound and if they are also politically attractive all the better; and third put a real vaccinologist in charge of our Nation’s vaccine efforts – because a respected and innovative vaccinologist will without a doubt draw other cutting.