When I went to the HIV vaccine meeting in Whistler last month, I heard some rather disturbing tales of people upset at the NIH. Some of the behind the scenes complaining I wrote about here. The rest became a news story about conflicts between HIV scientists and the NIH that runs in our May issue.

Before I wrote it, some scientists privately asked me not to write it, saying it would only stir up more trouble in the field. Others assumed—wrongly—that the story would be based on the complaints of only a few disgruntled researchers. But in fact, the discontentment is widespread, and CHAVI, the NIH’s HIV vaccine project, is perhaps unfairly bearing the brunt.

Even those who have little to do with HIV vaccines seem to be aware of the swirling bitterness. It’s understandable that CHAVI is stirring up resentment when established scientists are having to downsize their labs and young researchers are giving up on science, says Paul Bieniasz, who works at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York.

Bieniasz serves as chair of an NIH study section on AIDS molecular and cellular biology, so he has seen first hand the effect of the tightening budget on the peer review process. Like many others I quoted when CHAVI was first launched, he doesn’t believe sinking $350 million into one project is the way to solve the vaccine challenge. But unlike most of the people I tried to speak to for the most recent article, he was willing to go on the record.

“What if they’re (CHAVI is) wrong?” he says. “People have to speak out, we shouldn’t be living in an environment of fear.”

So… how about it? Here’s your chance to break out of the environment of fear…