Science journalists must help to root out misleading scientific claims, but not without sensitivity to culture and the limitations of science.

The research community's failure in the past 25 years to develop either a vaccine or a cure for HIV/AIDS underlines the need to be more, not less, scientific.

Disappointing results of clinical trials of a promising pair of new AIDS vaccines have highlighted the dilemmas faced by those determining strategy in this field. Fortunately, reactions on all sides indicate a willingness to use science as the principal basis of their decisions.

New research shows that treating HIV/AIDS patients need not be as expensive as feared. But that result must not fuel complacency about the disease; rather it should encourage more grass-roots engagement.

Julie Clayton argues that the successful strategy behind promising results now emerging from research into microbicides as a way of controlling HIV infection has important implications for other fields of biomedical research.

Spending on HIV/AIDS has become a litmus test of the depth of international commitment to helping the developing world — and of the spirit of generosity in which is offered.

Science communicators have an important role to play in helping to overcome the social prejudice and political short-sightedness that both form major barriers to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

A welcome decision by the European Union to open its Framework research programme to developing countries must not become an opportunity to create a new cycle of dependency by the South on the North.

The continued reluctance of the South African government to accept the scientific consensus on the cause of AIDS could undermine broader efforts to promote sustainable development.