Molecular HIV Surveillance and Public Health Ethics: Old Wine in New Bottles

Health policy counterpublics: Enacting collective resistances to US molecular HIV surveillance and cluster detection and response programs

Health policies and the problems they constitute are deeply shaped by multiple publics. In this article we conceptualize health policy counterpublics: temporally bounded socio-political forms that aim to cultivate particular modes of conduct, generally to resist trajectories set by arms of the state. These counterpublics often emerge from existing social movements and involve varied forms of activism and advocacy. We examine a health policy counterpublic that has arisen in response to new forms of HIV public health surveillance by drawing on public documents and interview data from 2021 with 26 stakeholders who were critical of key policy developments. Since 2018, the national rollout of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs in the United States has produced sustained controversies among HIV stakeholders, including among organized networks of people living with HIV. This article focuses on how a health policy counterpublic formed around MHS/CDR and how constituents problematized the policy agenda set in motion by federal health agencies, including in relation to data ethics, the meaningful involvement of affected communities, informed consent, the digitization of health systems, and HIV criminalization. Although familiar problems in HIV policymaking, concerns about these issues have been reconfigured in response to the new sociotechnical milieu proffered by MHS/CDR, generating new critical positions aiming to remake public health. Critical attention to the scenes within which health policy controversies play out ought to consider how (counter)publics are made, how problems are constituted, and the broader social movement dynamics and activist resources drawn upon to contest and reimagine policymaking in public life.

Toward Consent in Molecular HIV Surveillance?: Perspectives of Critical Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals' routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals' rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders.

METHODS

In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues.

RESULTS

Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals' data are used.

CONCLUSIONS

MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes.

Advancing Dialogue About Consent and Molecular HIV Surveillance in the United States: Four Proposals Following a Federal Advisory Panel's Call for Major Reforms

Policy Points Molecular HIV surveillance and cluster detection and response (MHS/CDR) programs have been a core public health activity in the United States since 2018 and are the "fourth pillar" of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative launched in 2019. MHS/CDR has caused controversy, including calls for a moratorium from networks of people living with HIV. In October 2022, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) adopted a resolution calling for major reforms. We analyze the policy landscape and present four proposals to federal stakeholders pertaining to PACHA's recommendations about incorporating opt-outs and plain-language notifications into MHS/CDR programs.

Lessons learned from community engagement regarding phylodynamic research with molecular HIV surveillance data

INTRODUCTION

The widespread implementation of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) has resulted in an increased discussion about the ethical, human rights and public health implications of MHS. We narrate our process of pausing our research that uses data collected through MHS in response to these growing concerns and summarize the key lessons we learned through conversations with community members.

METHODS

The original study aimed to describe HIV transmission patterns by age and race/ethnicity among men who have sex with men in King County, Washington, by applying probabilistic phylodynamic modelling methods to HIV-1 pol gene sequences collected through MHS. In September 2020, we paused the publication of this research to conduct community engagement: we held two public-facing online presentations, met with a national community coalition that included representatives of networks of people living with HIV, and invited two members of this coalition to provide feedback on our manuscript. During each of these meetings, we shared a brief presentation of our methods and findings and explicitly solicited feedback on the perceived public health benefit and potential harm of our analyses and results.

RESULTS

Some community concerns about MHS in public health practice also apply to research using MHS data, namely those related to informed consent, inference of transmission directionality and criminalization. Other critiques were specific to our research study and included feedback about the use of phylogenetic analyses to study assortativity by race/ethnicity and the importance of considering the broader context of stigma and structural racism. We ultimately decided the potential harms of publishing our study-perpetuating racialized stigma about men who have sex with men and eroding the trust between phylogenetics researchers and communities of people living with HIV-outweighed the potential benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV phylogenetics research using data collected through MHS data is a powerful scientific technology with the potential to benefit and harm communities of people living with HIV. Addressing criminalization and including people living with HIV in decision-making processes have the potential to meaningfully address community concerns and strengthen the ethical justification for using MHS data in both research and public health practice. We close with specific opportunities for action and advocacy by researchers.