ABSTRACT
I begin this essay by considering ways in which HIV and AIDS statistics have been gathered and presented by epidemiologists in official tables and charts. I examine how journalists and others have frequently based misleading accounts of the epidemic on selective reporting of statistics, which in turn reflect other forms of bias. I propose that epidemiology should be understood as a primary system of representation, mediating between the lived experience of the consequences of HIV infection and wider social beliefs, attitudes and behaviour, including public policies. In conclusion, I look at some of the ways in which targeted HIV/AIDS education for those at greatest risk has been widely neglected, whilst the needs of those at least risk have consistently drawn the most attention and resources. Throughout the AIDS crisis, the field of epidemiology has been the site of several complex biopolitical struggles in relation to a wide range of issues, from questions concerning the aims and methods of medical research (including clinical trials), to questions of social service provision and prevention strategies. These struggles demonstrate the importance of recognizing that statistics should be public rather than governmental property, and that epidemiologists have ethical responsibilities as social scientists to make the significance of their findings widely and accessibly available. Nor should the methods or reporting of national epidemiological research be subject to partisan political pressures from government or government agencies.
