Cover Image
close this bookUNAIDS-Sponsored Regional Workshops to Discuss Ethical Issues in Preventive HIV Vaccine Trials (UNAIDS, 2000, 52 p.)
close this folderWORKSHOP REPORTS
close this folderOURO PRETO, BRAZIL, 1-3 APRIL, 1998
View the document1. Vulnerability to Harm or Exploitation
View the document2. Collaboration in Phase I/II (Safety and Immunogenicity) Trials
View the document3. Phase III (efficacy) Trials
View the document4. Review of Vaccine Trials
View the document5. Candidate Vaccine Choice
View the document6. Community
View the document7. Intellectual Property
View the document8. Control Arm in Trials
View the document9. Informed Consent
View the document10. Gender, Pregnancy and Breast-Feeding
View the document11. Counselling, Treatment and Care
View the document12. Access and Availability of Vaccine
View the document13. Items Not Discussed

6. Community


Disagreement within the scientific/medical community, the HIV-affected community, and government concerning the appropriateness of scientific research is common. However, work on informing and developing consensus within these sectors must be carried out rigorously.


There was extensive comment on the difficulty in defining community, deciding what community is most important to consult with and choosing appropriate key informants. However, no concrete suggestions were made on how to address this issue.

When there is lack of consensus within a particular community, it is often due to inadequate information, and the process of education of the relevant sectors should be a major part of consensus-building.


There was debate concerning who should be able to veto a trial (scientists, community, government, and sponsor), or decide to continue in spite of lack of consensus.

Some believe that effective individual informed consent will provide adequate protection when there are issues that cannot be agreed upon by scientists, ethicists, and community advisory boards. However, some do not agree that the decision should be left to the individual if there is significant disagreement at the level of these planning groups.