Experiment offers new route to AIDS vaccine

Fresh hopes for killing an old enemy

A team at the University of California Los Angeles said they had found a way to kill the virus and expose its insides to the immune system, which they said should generate a strong response against it. 

Boosting the immune system is the idea behind all immunisations. Sometimes a dead version of the bug is enough to stimulate an immune response, as in one of the two polio vaccines, but with HIV it has not worked. "For a vaccine to work, we believe it needs to launch a two-prong response," Kathie Grovit-Ferbas, who led the research, said in a statement.

"It must first persuade the body to manufacture antibodies to fight off infection and second, elicit a cellular response to produce immunity," she added.

"Our vaccine is the first derived from a killed AIDS virus to achieve both in the laboratory." A killed virus would be much safer than an "attenuated" virus that has been weakened. Experiments so far suggest that an attenuated HIV virus can still eventually cause disease.

The problem with HIV is that it is so changeable. The parts that are really important to identifying it are inside, and only exposed briefly when, for instance, the virus grapples with a cell it is about to infect.

Writing in the Journal of Virology, Ferbas and her team said they first used heat to disable HIV without separating the virus from its outer envelope.

"We know that concealed parts of the viral envelope play a key role in stimulating HIV antibodies," said Ferbas. "But the envelope had always fallen off in earlier efforts to kill the virus. When we looked at our dead virus, we were elated to discover that we'd not only exposed its hidden areas, but also saved the viral envelope."

- Reuters

Focus on Rights

Postal woes and "hypocritical" amendments

In early 1999, a Postal Corporation Bill was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament with the purpose of converting the old Department of Posts into a Corporation. Immediately after it was so placed, the Bill was challenged in the Supreme Court as being contrary to the Constitution, including the rights of freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of thought and conscience and equality before the law. The frontal attack launched on the Bill focused, in the main, on provisions of the Bill which attempted to convert the Corporation into a commercial and profit making exercise as contrasted to a postal service providing an essential public service to the country. Provisions challenged as obnoxious therefore included clause 23 of the Bill which specified the financial objectives of the Corporation to be the attainment of financial viability and self sufficiency within eight years and thereafter, to generate profits, after tax so as to make payments to the Government of such sum as may be determined by the Minister. 

Argument in court proceeded on the following lines. The postal service provided an essential service to the public by conveying postal articles for citizens who wish to communicate with each other and also by disseminating information and knowledge among citizens. Presently, concessional rates of postage are allowed for newspapers and educational material. However, in the light of the objectives of the Bill, the Corporation would have no option but to increase rates of postage and to withdraw existing concessions. The Minister was given an unfettered power to determine raises on the price of postage and to determine the contribution payable to the Government. The whole therefore amounted to a dangerous subversion of the rationale in providing a postal service to the public. 

Other clauses of the Bill also came under attack. These included clauses compulsorily retiring employees of the Department who are not appointed to the Corporation, giving the President the power to intercept mail including letters sent by the Commisioner of Elections containing ballot papers and poll cards, prohibiting total disclosure of information relating to the Corporation, giving certain exemptions and immunities to the Corporation and giving the Corporation power to seize and detain postal articles.

The Supreme Court Determination on the Bill in February last year, effectively ruled the Bill as violating the Constitution on all the grounds specified above. In particular, its reasoning with regard to clause 23 read together with clause 28 becomes crucial in the present context. In the opinion of the Court, comprising Justices Fernando, Amera-singhe and de Z. Gunewardene, the mere fact that the Bill stated the financial objectives of the Corporation to be the attainment of financial viability could not, by itself, be considered to be objectionable. Neither was the policy decision of the Government that those citizens who use the postal services should themselves meet the costs of the services they use. However, clause 23© read together with clause 28 allowing the Minister an "unbridled power to determine prices and profits" was declared to be unconstitutional. There were no realistic restraints imposed on the Minister's power in this respect and though the Bill provided for a Regulator to look after the interests of the consumers, this safeguard was negated by the Bill appointing the Secretary to the Ministry as the Regulator. Rightly, the Court was of the view that it would be "awkward" for the Secretary to question the prices fixed by the Minister. 

On a similar reasoning, the provisions of the Bill not ensuring the security of employees of the Department was struck out by the Court. The Supreme Court specifically stated that "the Bill contains numerous errors, omissions, ambiguities and inconsistencies…the brevity of the period allowed for our Determination does not permit us to make a detailed scrutiny of all these or to suggest amendments". 

Thus was the decision of the Supreme Court, ultimately concluding that the Bill would have to be passed by a two thirds majority in Parliament. Approximately one year and four months later, what do we have now? To give the devil its due (metaphorically speaking, of course) the "amended" Postal Corporation Bill that was to be presented by Media and Posts Minister Mangala Samaraweera before Parliament this Thursday has attempted to correct some of the more glaring defects in the Bill outlined above, including the power given to the President to intercept mail which has now been taken out of the Bill. In addition, it is now provided that the Corporation shall employ any public officer of the Department of Posts who seeks employment with the Corporation with the provision relating to automatic termination of retirement from the public service also deleted. 

However, the question whether there has been compliance with the Supreme Court Determination has been cast very sharply in issue by the fact that only cosmetic changes have been made to clause 23 read with 28. This is immediately apparent on a reading of these so called amendments. Thus, we have the Minister's power to determine prices and profits remaining intact. The reference to "financial objectives of the Corporation" in clause 23 is only qualified by a largely meaningless reminder that this should be without prejudice to the renumerations payable to the officers and servants of the Corporation. Similarly, clause 28 has a mere additional one liner to the effect that the Minister, when determining the sum to be paid by the Corporation to the Government, may have regard to the "interests of users of postal services". The old provision that the Minister should also bear in mind the cost that the Corporation is required to bear in providing uneconomical service in achieving the principal object of the Corporation is also left untouched. And importantly, the Secretary to the Ministry remains the Regulator, thus making the whole nothing but a mockery of what the Supreme Court determined as being unconstitutional and as violative of none other than the rights of freedom of thought and conscience and of speech and expression of citizens. Hence logically, the fears of the trade unionists that the bill would lead to the Postal Corporation becoming another Gas Company with arbitrary increase of prices according to political whim and fancy. It is also a fact worthy of mention that that the "amended" Bill incorporates several new amendments that were not considered or suggested by the Supreme Court last year. 

Several questions now arise. In the above context, it is clear that the "amended" Bill is an obvious tactic to circumvent the two thirds procedure laid down by the Supreme Court as being necessary for the passing of the old Bill. And apart from taking to the streets, which the Postal Department employees have done very successfully to delay the presentation of the "amended" Bill, what other action is open to citizens and those directly affected when the Government makes the whole process of judicial review of Bills, a palpable exercise in hypocrisy? Past experience in this country has not been encouraging. Thus, in instances where a Bill has been certified by the Speaker as having been passed by Parliament, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the validity of proceedings in Parliament cannot be called into question by a Court. One clear instance of this was when the Supreme Court declined jurisdiction in response to similar objections in the case of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution setting up the scheme of Provincial Councils in the country, pointing out however that this is "indeed a matter worthy of consideration by those recommending amendments to the Constitution."

For those continuing to be directly affected by the non-compliance by Parliament of the directions of the Supreme Court in respect of Bills vital to the country, this recommendation can, of course, only come as cold comfort. In the case of the Postal Corporation Bill, it's presentation has apparently been deferred until July 5. 

Given a re-presentation, the Government should do well to remember that the Speakers' certificate has not been affixed on the Bill up to date. In that situation, it could well be argued that a future presenting of the "amended" Bill in its present form would be contrary to Section 123(4) of the Constitution, which specifies that a Bill ruled by the Supreme Court as being inconsistent with the Constitution can only be passed after such amendment as would rob it of all its inconsistencies. Be that as it may, the prompt action taken by the employees of the Postal Department this week to avert the presenting of a flawed Bill can only be commended as one instance, albeit sadly rare, when vigilance actually worked in this country.

The height of hiking prices

By Kumbakarana 

Let's take electricity. We are apparently using costly diesel power as hydro power is scarce due to the lack of rain. The reality is that domestic electricity consumption in Sri Lanka is only 35% and even if the CEB supplied this free of charge it will not be at a great loss, as capital invested in Lakshapana, Maussakele, Randenigala, Victoria etc., has fully recovered. However the enormous costs incurred in the disastrous Samanalawewa Project, the massive wastage of electricity and the building of new diesel power stations merely for commissions offered by foreign companies are weighing heavily on the CEB's purse. The only way to absorb these costs is to increase the price of domestic electricity. And the next scenario is predictable - to argue for a coal power station to produce cheap electricity. 

Telephone costs - one condition of sale of telecom was that by year 2005, Nippon Company could increase telephone charges by 250%. So the consumer is at the mercy of profit making companies while the commissions from privatisation are fattening the pockets of politicians and corrupt officials. 

Diesel price hike - resulted in increased costs of consumer goods all round. In Sri Lanka diesel prices are always increased. Even when crude oil prices drop in the world market, there is no corresponding decrease in the price of diesel. A few simple calculations would show that the Petroleum Corporation earned an extra revenue of over Rs. 100 billion (equivalent to military costs of two years) when crude oil prices dropped from $35 to $15 recently.

Price of gas is jacked up by the Shell Company as they please. It is no secret that they have already recovered their minimal investments here, due to the excellent terms offered by the State, i.e. subsidised builiding and capital costs. The price hike therefore is to massively broaden their profit margin. 

Thus the so-called costs of the war is a downright lie and a myth created to hide official and political corruption. There is and was no connection between the cost of living and the costs of the war. This was clearly revealed in parliamentary debates on May 9 and June 9. The figures given were as follows: 

The 1999 budget allocation for defence was Rs. 52 billion of which 8.9 billion was for maintenance of general law and order, leaving 43.1 for expenses on the armed forces. However the actual amount granted for the war effort was Rs. 22 billion. The government however earned over Rs. 27 billion from defence levies alone in 1999. The people's contribution through two days' salary and in many other ways was over 500 million, 

The 'war footing' has not meant that more troops have been recruited or the build up of a 'nationalist mentality'. All that has happened is to spread bogus propaganda and hide behind 'a costly war' to conceal real bankruptcy and corruption. 

The question is why have they raised the cost of living with the general elections close at hand?