Aids conference fails value-for-money test: Liz Hunt reports on growing criticism of the Berlin meeting's problematic mix of politics, science and commercial lobbying

'THE AIDS Conference? Well, it's great to get away and meet up with friends here in Europe, but personally I don't get a great deal out of it. Most of what you see and hear has already been published. It is nothing more than a showcase.'

The American scientist who made this comment was slumped over his beer at the end of another gruelling day of multiple speeches, presentations, round-table discussions and workshops at the IXth International Conference on Aids. His was not the only dissenting voice. That the conference, which closed yesterday, is waste of money that would be better invested in research and care, was frequently discussed in the bars, restaurants and cafes of the conference centre in Berlin.

A leading British Aids expert who asked not to be named, but who is a regular attender, said: 'It is all a bit of a bunfight now. The people I need to see I meet out of conference, the rest of the year.'

This annual gathering of those involved in every aspect of Aids and HIV, from the basic science to the sociological and economic impact of the disease, is one of world's biggest conferences. It is also the most politically correct - which is why its critics prefer to remain nameless. More than 12,000 delegates from 166 countries negotiated their way through the offerings of almost 1,000 speakers and 5,000 papers and presentations. But there is growing speculation that it is unlikely to continue in its present form. Next year, the conference will be in Japan, and thereafter it will be held every two years. Some suspect that it may be 'quietly dropped' to be replaced by smaller meetings. There is much support for the idea.

A particular concern is that the conference is being 'hijacked' by commercial and political interests. Wellcome, manufacturers of the drug AZT, conducted a damage limitation exercise throughout the week. The company did its best to rubbish the results of Concorde, a British/French trial that showed AZT did not delay the onset of Aids in healthy HIV positive people.

Another company, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, involved in the development of an HIV immunisation therapy for infected people, skilfully manipulated the media. From the opening day, the word was out that Dr Jonas Salk, one of the most eminent vaccine researchers, would make a major announcement. The company's share price is reported to have risen in anticipation, and financial analysts were the most important guests at a press conference arranged away from the official event. Aids activists, whose various protests and sit-ins are a feature of these conferences, also made their mark. The exhibition stands of pharmaceutical companies accused of exploitation were attacked, and the British contingent burnt fake pound notes in protest at government cuts in Aids funding. In an outbreak of 'me-too' activism, lesbians complained at every opportunity that they were left out in the Aids/HIV debate. One can understand why, since their risk is minimal.

Sue Hughes of Scrip, a pharmaceutical industry news weekly, said that for some time Aids researchers had argued that the conference should be split into a scientific meeting, and a social and political event. 'There is no other conference in the world that has this political input, that can detract from what is important scientifically,' she said.

At the beginning of the epidemic there was a desperate need for information, for scientists and doctors from around the world to exchange views on the illness and the seemingly invincible virus. A great deal of progress was made in a short space of time and it was vital to disseminate that information. Now progress is, and will continue to be, much slower.