Hope and the Fight against HIV

The battle must continue, even if 25 years of research have disappointed

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In February, Nobel laureate David Baltimore, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), could scarcely have been more depressing. “We have been trying to make an HIV vaccine since the day HIV was discovered. In 1984 we were told that as the virus had been found, a vaccine should be just around the corner,” he reminded an audience at the annual AAAS meeting in Boston. “Every year since then, we have been saying it is at least 10 years away. I still think it is at least 10 years away.”

All attempts with vaccines to raise anti­bodies against HIV had failed, he observed. Researchers would need to go back to basics and pursue new approaches to fighting the virus. “Our lack of success may be understandable,” Baltimore declared, “but it is not acceptable.” It was (and remains) an admirable sentiment, but of course determination is no substitute for results for those in need.

A grim report in August from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention drove home how numerous those in need are. The CDC concluded that it had been underestimating the number of new HIV infections in the U.S. by about 40 percent annually for the past 10 years or more. More than half of all new infections were in gay and bisexual men; African-Americans were seven times as likely to have contracted a new infection as whites, and Latinos were three times as likely. The catastrophe of HIV/AIDS in the developing world is even more horrifying.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


If the past quarter of a century of vaccine research has been bleak, so has the outlook for a cure. Beyond killing certain immune cells outright, HIV can infiltrate and lie dormant in the central nervous system, the gut and other tissues, waiting for a chance to erupt and renew its assault on the body. So far the dream of curing HIV infections by eliminating the virus from the body remains elusive.

Even so, all is not lost. Our special report on the 25-year fight against HIV looks at both the vaccine and virus-elimination efforts, reviews where they failed and identifies the best opportunities for making some progress in the future.

Moreover, public hygiene–based prevention efforts and aggressive treatments of infections can still do much of what elusive vaccines and cures ever would, if society is prepared to commit to them. Safe-sex education and condom-distribution programs can help prevent not only HIV infections but also other sexually transmitted diseases. Meanwhile microbicides—creams and gels for killing vaginal infections that raise the risk of HIV transmission—show tremendous promise; they deserve far more research funding than they have received to date. Strong epidemiological evidence suggests that circumcision, too, reduces the risk of trans­mitting HIV as much as 60 percent.

For many HIV patients, protease inhibitors and other drugs have turned their infections into long-term manageable conditions. The treatment regimen called HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) can knock viral levels in the body down so low that transmission risk is greatly reduced. Scientists are even checking whether people at risk for infection might benefit from taking antiretroviral drugs before they are exposed.

Ideas for fighting HIV are not in short supply. But well-directed funding and commitment to clear-sighted public health policies sometimes are. We can’t blame the virus for that.

Note: This article was originally published with the title, "Hope and HIV".

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe