Museum of failed HIV research

If a museum existed that contained a collection of failed artefacts related to HIV research what would that look like? How would failure be defined such that items could be representative of it and what would these definitions tell us about HIV research? These were some of the lines of enquiry which prompted the exploration of the Museum of Failed HIV Research as a conceptual space for scholars to examine these failure. This special issue is a collection of papers that have interrogated these questions and they present on display some of the possible ways of considering failure in HIV research. The Museum of Failed HIV Research began its life as a panel at the Second International HIV Social Sciences and Humanities Conference in Paris, France, in July 2013. HIV has brought together various disciplines, e.g. Epidemiology, Global Health and clinical trials; qualitative health research; and Sociology, Science and Technology Studies, and Anthropology, and the conference reflected the range of languages, interests, styles and conventions of the multiple efforts targeting HIV/AIDS. The editors of this special issue invited scholars to submit papers that discussed failure. This forum framed the discussion of failure, and this special issue grew out of that panel in important ways. For instance, all these papers discuss contemporary examples of HIV research, which reflected the focus of conference. Additionally, and unlike the discussion of failure in biomedical fora, these papers employ a social scientific methodology, mainly ethnographic techniques, which is reflective of the host journal of this collection, Anthropology & Medicine. The papers in this special issue examine a range of issues including community engagement, the role of volunteer labour in data production, evidence-based medicine, methodological concerns about the use of the case as the unit of analysis, developing caring relationships with research participants during the conduct of research and the role of ethics as a ‘fail-safe’ device in the conduct of HIV research and in regulating and promoting good practice. Unlike the exploration of historic discredited practices, these papers address ideas of contemporary importance. They all represent different areas of HIV research and practice which are currently deemed to be credible (Bloor 1976; Pels 2003). This has made the accounts stimulating as they have engaged in some of the ambiguities involved in ideas of failure and success. The contemporary nature of their subject-matter also presents opportunities to inform policy and practices in real-time. Furthermore, and unlike the study of controversies, none of the authors aimed to specifically examine failure in their research. However, through their work in HIV the concept of failure emerged in a variety of forms. As a consequence, all these papers employ the notion of failure as an analytical tool to open the possibility of considering HIV research and practice in alternative ways.