Defending the boundaries of science: AIDS denialism, peer review and the Medical Hypotheses saga.

This paper explores the boundary work undertaken by HIV scientists and activists against the journal Medical Hypotheses over its lack of peer review. Their action was sparked by the publication of an article by Peter Duesberg claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS and that antiretrovirals do more harm than good. Precisely because such 'AIDS denialism' can undermine HIV prevention and treatment interventions, as was demonstrably the case in South Africa under President Mbeki, the episode raised questions about when, in the interests of public health, the boundaries of legitimate scientific debate may be drawn to exclude unreasonable and unscholarly arguments. The paper argues that normative concerns motivated the complaints which resulted in the publisher withdrawing Duesberg's paper and imposing editorial policy changes on Medical Hypotheses. Concerns were raised about the implications for academic freedom of this boundary work in defence of peer review as a core practice in science. The paper concludes, however, that Duesberg's freedom to write what he likes remains intact, but that if he wants his work to carry the imprimatur of science, he now has to subject it to peer review.