The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to support multi-component, multi-disciplinary projects that address important scientific questions relevant to AIDS prophylactic vaccine discovery research. Extensive modeling of vaccine concepts in non-human primates may be included.
Details at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-15-164.html#sthash.4hgMh…

This post first appeared on the Huffington Post.

In 2015, the International AIDS Society (IAS) will hold a conference in Vancouver, returning to the city for a large-scale meeting the first time since the 1996 AIDS Conference that heralded the beginning of the era of highly active antiretroviral treatment. And in 2016, the IAS will convene the large, biennial International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa—16 years after the 2000 conference that revolutionized global expectations of AIDS treatment in low-income settings.

The 1996 and 2000 conferences are by many accounts the two most significant global AIDS meetings that have ever taken place. And it is possible, if the right steps are taken, the right funds committed, the right programs implemented and the right partners engaged that the 2015 and 2016 meetings could prove to be watershed moments in the field.

These are big “ifs.”

The most pressing and fundamental question is one of financial resources. If global investment doesn’t match the price tag for expanded, comprehensive prevention, then all the plans and targets in the world are irrelevant.

But if it does, then by 2016, we could begin to see evidence of downward slopes that confirm we’re on track to beginning to end the AIDS epidemic in our lifetime.

AVAC, the HIV advocacy organization that I direct, just released Prevention on the Line, a report in which we talk about target setting and the importance of having specific strategies, clear definitions and strong commitments.

We also talk about the need for short-term action. The world cannot wait until 2020 to find out whether the AIDS response is on track to end the epidemic by 2030. Indicators of progress or problems are already available—and the picture will be even clearer by the time the Vancouver and Durban conferences take place.

There is no better use of these large, costly AIDS meetings than to take honest stock of the global response and galvanize action on a global scale.

Both the 1996 and 2000 conferences are remembered as momentous turning points. They’re also remembered for the grief and urgency of the time. People who lived through the early years of the AIDS epidemic remember the dawn of the HAART era as a moment of exhaustion and grief, as well as celebration.

And while Durban started a revolution in AIDS drugs for Africa, it took four long years—and an unconscionable number of lives—before that revolution realized its goals.

Today the AIDS response is poised at another moment that could be a revolution, providing that it does not dissipate into rhetoric or dissolve into underfunded documents and plans.

Will Vancouver 2015 be the meeting where science, rights and action get in sync and revolutionize the epidemic once again? Will Durban 2016 lead to massive mobilization for decisive action on ending the epidemic?

Let’s use the memories of those who did not live to return to Vancouver and Durban—as well as our own memories and histories—to fuel the continued fight for lasting change.

National Institutes of Health
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) invites applications that propose to understand social determinants of health as they relate to HIV infection and disease outcomes in order to identify mutable targets for inclusion in structural interventions. Details at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-MH-16-200.html

In December 2009, the trial known as MDP 301 released results that the microbicide gel known as PRO 2000 had not shown efficacy among women in Zambia, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. These results were not unique as many efficacy trials in HIV prevention and in other arenas have shown flat results, or at times even increased risk. However, what happened after the released results was unique. Blogs and online media framed the trial as “exploitation”, resulting in skepticism about future HIV microbicide trials. Six years later, the effects of that misleading reporting can still be felt. That’s why the recent Toronto Star article caught my eye.

On February 5th the Toronto Star published an investigative article on the HPV vaccine headlined “A wonder drug’s dark side”. The article focused on several young women who became sick after receiving Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil. Although the article stated that the illnesses were not conclusively linked to the vaccine, the photos, front page headline and anecdotes likely led some readers to believe that the Star had uncovered the “truth” about the vaccine.

The Star removed the article a week later but not before it fell under heavy criticism by other media outlets:

The Washington Post quoted Vox Science writer Julia Belluz, “everything wrong with vaccine reporting in one dangerous package. These tales of suffering and death are awful. Stomach turning. But they are just that: stories.” JAMA also wrote “Not all reported events are systematically validated, and many may have only coincidentally followed vaccination,” the study said, adding that underreporting, inconsistency in the quality and completeness of reported data, stimulated reporting due to extensive news coverage and reporting biases could also skew these numbers.”

Global News quoted Dr. Jen Gunter, an OB/GYN, “Paragraph after paragraph is dedicated to detailing the terrible things that happened to these young girls and their families and in an Oprah-esque move the wealth of information detailing the vaccine’s safety was distilled to a few comments easy to ignore in among the trail of destruction allegedly due to the vaccine. It also quoted Julia Belluz, “In medicine, anecdotes are considered the least helpful type of evidence. They are biased, unrepresentative, and, as often as not, misleading,” wrote Belluz. “What’s worse, while the Star cherry-picked damning cases about the vaccine’s alleged harms, they ignored the reams of independent studies we have involving millions of women around the world that show the vaccine is safe.”

CBC quoted John Cruickshank, the Star publisher, from his As it Happens Interview: “”We failed in this case. We let down. And it was in the management of the story at the top,” It also brought to light how two Star staff lashed out at critics: Michael Cooke, editor-in-chief of the Star, responded to Vox’s Julia Belluz: “’Stop gargling our bathwater and take the energy to run yourself your own, fresh tub.’ Cooke also called a reader an ‘idiot’ on Twitter.” Columnist Heather Mallick from the Star also criticized Dr. Jen Gunter by writing: “Here’s a tip: don’t read a website run by a rural doctor whose slogan is ‘wielding the lasso of truth.”

The Los Angeles Times writes: “But has the damage already been done? The article should stay online, as a warning to readers — not of the purported dangers of a life-saving vaccine, but of the real perils of shoddy science reporting.”

After much criticism, the Star printed a commentary titled “Science shows HPV vaccine has no dark side”. They write: “The Star presented the stories of women who have suffered greatly. The article was engaging, dramatic and might have created fear. But study after study has shown that there is no causal link between the events the Star reported and the vaccine. About 169 million doses of the HPV vaccine have been administered worldwide. In any given large population, there will be illness and death. This is a statistical fact. To attribute rare devastating occurrences to a vaccine requires evidence of causation, of which the international scientific community and the Star article have none.”

Thankfully, in this case, there was a swift response to this misleading, “investigative” report that resulted in the take down of the report. Had it not, there could have been serious implications for the future of the HPV vaccine and/or other vaccines. Although my hope is that this is a solitary incident, I know that this is not the last time we will see misreported facts. But this highlights the important role science reporting plays, and especially in sharing new information about health research. The things that we write and say shape public perception — and they have consequences that can have long-lasting effects.