We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Scientists seeking funding for research on the best way to deliver AIDS therapies in developing countries are finding themselves short of funds because institutes such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are refusing to pay for anti-HIV drugs for such trials.

A draft policy issued by the NIH states that the cost of purchasing drugs for clinical trials would be so great that it "would severely restrict the institute's research capacity". Furthermore, the document argues that it would be unethical to stop treatment when a trial ends.

In this article, Jon Cohen explores the arguments for and against such an approach. Some feel that those who carry out clinical trials should be obliged to continue providing drugs after the study ends. Others argue that in practice, imposing this obligation stifles research and would be to the detriment of those most at need in developing countries.

Link to full Science article

Reference: Science 300, 1212 (2003)