Politics joins scientists at AIDS meeting

The conflict is just one skirmish in a larger war that erupted soon after George Bush took office 5 1/2 years ago over interference with scientific research in politically sensitive areas such as endangered species, climate change, sexually transmitted diseases, evolution versus intelligent design, and stem cell research.

The larger struggle continued this week as Bush cited "moral" reasons Wednesday in vetoing a bill from the U.S. Senate to allow the NIH to fund medical research that used surplus embryonic stem cells from fertility clinics.

And on Thursday a leading science advocacy group released its third survey where U.S. government researchers complained of political interference with scientific findings.

Nearly a fifth of the almost 1,000 scientists who answered the confidential survey said they had been asked ?- for non-scientific reasons ?- to change or delete technical information or conclusions in scientific documents at the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA is the federal agency which guarantees the safety of food and drugs through testing and regulation. The Union of Concerned Scientists sent the survey to the FDA's 6,000 scientists.

"These aren't isolated incidents. It's something that's happening across government on a regular basis," said Francesca Grifo, the union's director of the scientific integrity program.

Also happening on a regular basis is controversy over U.S. government policies at international AIDS conferences. Advocacy groups didn't have a unified front at previous meetings in Bangkok and Barcelona. So this time more than three dozen U.S. and international groups created the ad hoc "strike force," called the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention. The three key partners are the Foundation for AIDS Research, Population Action International and the Sexuality and Education Council of the U.S.

The groups are pushing for HIV and AIDS strategies based solely on scientific evidence, defined as "rigorously designed, implemented and evaluated studies and programs."

"Too often, for ideological and political reasons, strategies with no proven efficacy have been promoted instead of those that are known to work," says a caucus briefing memo.