AIDS at 25

At tonight's opening ceremony, I wasn't sitting in the midfield, gazing up through the stadium's retractable roof at the Perseids meteor shower. Nonetheless, I was treated to a spectacle against the backdrop of a four-story high red ribbon.

The event came to life when Dr. Mark Wainberg, co-chair of the conference, denounced Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's choice not to appear before the 20,000-plus delegates. "The role of Prime Minister includes the responsibility to show leadership on the world stage," Wainberg said in a booming voice. "Your absence sends the message that you do not regard HIV/AIDS as a priority. Obviously all of us here tonight disagree with you." He also held Harper directly responsible for the absence of Liberia's President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first female African leader, who cancelled her scheduled appearance at the conference. Later in his speech, Wainberg went on to attack Harper's conservative policies, asking, "Mr. Harper, don't you understand that harm-reduction programs save lives?" Wainberg noted Canada's position as a global leader in public health and, taking his final swipe at the Prime Minister, who many Canadians feel is too cozy with George W. Bush and his administration, warned that "we should not listen to countries that have little to teach us" about it. (Even Richard Gere, who could barely hold the audience's attention on the heals of Bill and Melinda Gates' keynote address, got in on the action. He invoked Ronald Reagan, who Gere said did not publicly speak about AIDS until 8 years into his presidency, suggesting that Harper would come to regret his decision.)

As the sole scientist to speak at the opening ceremony, Wainberg had more freedom than the others to criticize the Canadian PM. But I still found his candor refreshing and his passion infectious. Scientists too often choose to remain quiet when their point of view is what most needs to be heard. Wainberg can't be accused of shrugging off responsibility--or of being wrong. As a Canadian and a scientist, he was clearly unwilling to accept the lack of political will, or the political ignorance that Harper's choice symbolizes.