Antiretroviral therapy is not curative. Given the challenges in providing life-long therapy to a global population of over 35 million people living with HIV, there is intense interest in developing a cure for HIV infection. The International AIDS Society convened a group of international experts to develop a scientific strategy for research towards an HIV cure. This Perspective summarizes the group's strategy.

As antiretroviral therapy becomes more widely available in low-resource settings and children with HIV/AIDS live for longer periods, disclosure of HIV diagnosis to infected children is becoming increasingly important. This article reviews the current literature on HIV-related disclosure in light of theories of cognitive development, and argues for the adoption of a process-oriented approach to discussing HIV with infected children. Disclosure presents unique challenges to healthcare workers and caregivers of children with HIV/AIDS that include controlling the flow of information about the child's HIV status to him/her and deciding on what is in his/her best interest. Health care workers' and caregivers' views regarding disclosure to children may often be contradictory, with healthcare workers likely to support disclosing the diagnosis of HIV/AIDS to children and caregivers more reluctant to discuss the disease with them. There is a clear need for practical interventions to support paediatric HIV disclosure which provide children with age-appropriate information about the disease.

The disclosure of HIV status to infected children has received relatively little attention to date in sub-Saharan Africa. We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers working in a large paediatric HIV clinic in Cape Town, South Africa regarding attitudes and experiences around discussing HIV with infected children. Most providers felt that the optimal age for general discussions about an HIV-infected child's health should happen around age 6, but that specific discussions regarding HIV infection should be delayed to a median of 10 years. Though most providers said that primary caregivers were the most appropriate individuals to lead disclosure discussions, there were strong views that caregivers require support from healthcare providers. These findings indicate the complexities involved in the disclosure of HIV status to infected children, and point to the need for interventions to support caregivers and providers in disclosure discussions.

BackgroundThe use of biological samples in research raises a number of ethical issues in relation to consent, storage, export, benefit sharing and re-use of samples. Participant perspectives have been explored in North America and Europe, with only a few studies reported in Africa. The amount of research being conducted in Africa is growing exponentially with volumes of biological samples being exported from the African continent. In order to investigate the perspectives of African research participants, we conducted a study at research sites in the Western Cape and Gauteng, South Africa.MethodsData were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire that captured both quantitative and qualitative information at 6 research sites in South Africa. Interviews were conducted in English and Afrikaans. Data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.ResultsOur study indicates that while the majority of participants were supportive of providing samples for research, serious concerns were voiced about future use, benefit sharing and export of samples. While researchers view the provision of biosamples as a donation, participants believe that they still have ownership rights and are therefore in favour of benefit sharing. Almost half of the participants expressed a desire to be re-contacted for consent for future use of their samples. Interesting opinions were expressed with respect to export of samples.ConclusionsEliciting participant perspectives is an important part of community engagement in research involving biological sample collection, export, storage and future use. A tiered consent process appears to be more acceptable to participants in this study. Eliciting opinions of researchers and research ethics committee (REC) members would contribute multiple perspectives. Further research is required to interrogate the concept of ownership and the consent process in research involving biological samples.

BackgroundBiobanks are precariously situated at the intersection of science, genetics, genomics, society, ethics, the law and politics. This multi-disciplinarity has given rise to a new discourse in health research involving diverse stakeholders. Each stakeholder is embedded in a unique context and articulates his/her biobanking activities differently. To researchers, biobanks carry enormous transformative potential in terms of advancing scientific discovery and knowledge. However, in the context of power asymmetries in Africa and a distrust in science born out of historical exploitation, researchers must balance the scientific imperative of collecting, storing and sharing high quality biological samples with obligations to donors/participants, communities, international collaborators, regulatory and ethics authorities. To date, researcher perspectives on biobanking in South Africa have not been explored and documented.MethodsIn-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 researchers – 8 in the Western Cape, 3 in Gauteng and 10 in Kwa-Zulu Natal. Interviews lasted approximately 40–60 min and were audiotaped with consent. Thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was conducted by the co-authors.ResultsResearchers articulated serious concerns over standardised regulatory approaches that failed to consider the heterogeneity of biobanks. Given that biobanks differ considerably, guidelines and RECs need to stratify risk accordingly and governance processes and structures must be flexible. While RECs were regarded as an important component of the governance structure researchers expressed concern about their expertise in biobanking. Operational management of biobanks was regarded as an ethical imperative and a pre-requisite to building trust during consent processes. While broad general consent was preferred, tiered consent was thought to be more consistent with respect for autonomy and building trust. Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) were often lacking when biosamples were exported and this was perceived to impact negatively on trust. On the other hand, researchers believed that authentic community engagement would help to build trust.ConclusionBuilding trust will best be achieved via a system of governance structures and processes that precede the establishment of a biobank and monitor progress from the point of sample collection through to future use, including export. Such governance structures must be robust and must include comprehensive national legislation, policy and contextualised guidelines. Currently such governance infrastructure appears to be lacking in many African countries including South Africa. Capacity development of all stakeholders including REC members will enhance expeditious and efficient review of biobanking protocols which in turn will reinforce trust in the researcher-donor relationship. Science translation and community engagement in biobanking is integral to the success of biobanking in South Africa.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version ...