Access

Published online 2 April 2008 | Nature 452, 516 (2008) | doi:10.1038/452516a

News in Brief

Back to basics for HIV vaccine development

Comments

Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.

  • Yes, "it is partly a crisis of its own making — one that holds lessons for many other areas of biomedical research" (Nature Editorial). But the same lessons have emerged, time and again, in the past. For examples, see: http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev0.htm. The history of science provides a clear record of how important discoveries are made, or not made. Yet, the chain linking this information to those who could bring about reforms is tenuous.

    • 02 Apr, 2008
    • Posted by: Donald Forsdyke

  • There seem to be at least two sets of microbial pathogens, from the vaccine point of view. There are those for which it is (or has been) possible to develop efficacious vaccines. And there are those for which this seems to be difficult. At present we do not seem to be in a position to differentiate between these two groups of microbial pathogens.

    • 03 Apr, 2008
    • Posted by: Jacob E John

  • Currently, mainly IFN-gamma ELISPOT is used in Phase 1 HIV vaccine trials to measure immune response since validated assays are available for quantifying its production. The recent failure of some of the HIV vaccines clearly shows that more parameters need to be studied. These should include more cytokines, viral neutralization assays and the impact of anti vector immune response on the vaccine induced immune response. The decision to scale up trials of promising vaccine candidates will then have a greater scientific rigour. V.D.Ramanathan

    • 04 Apr, 2008
    • Posted by: Vadakkuppattu Ramanathan