For over a decade, the binary concepts of ‘sterilizing’ versus ‘functional’ cure have provided an organizing framework for the field of HIV cure-related research. In this article, we examine how the expression ‘functional cure’ is employed within the field, published literature, and community understanding of HIV cure research. In our synthesis of the different meanings attributed to ‘functional cure’ within contemporary biomedical discourse, we argue that employing the ‘functional cure’ terminology poses a series of problems. The expression itself is contradictory and inconsistently used across a wide array of HIV cure research initiatives. Further, the meaning and acceptability of ‘functional cure’ within communities of people living with and affected by HIV is highly variable. After drawing lessons from other fields, such as cancer and infectious hepatitis cure research, we summarize our considerations and propose alternative language that may more aptly describe the scientific objectives in question. We call for closer attention to language used to describe HIV cure-related research, and for continued, significant, and strategic engagement to ensure acceptable and more precise terminology.

十多年来，“绝育”与“功能性”治疗的二元概念为艾滋病毒治疗相关研究领域提供了组织框架。在本文中，我们研究了“功能性治愈”一词在该领域、已发表的文献以及社区对艾滋病毒治愈研究的理解中的应用情况。在我们对当代生物医学话语中“功能性治疗”的不同含义的综合中，我们认为使用“功能性治疗”术语会带来一系列问题。该表达本身是矛盾的，并且在广泛的艾滋病毒治疗研究计划中使用不一致。此外，“功能性治疗”的含义和可接受性在艾滋病毒感染者和受其影响的人群中存在很大差异。在吸取癌症和传染性肝炎治疗研究等其他领域的经验教训后，我们总结了我们的考虑，并提出了可能更恰当地描述所讨论的科学目标的替代语言。我们呼吁更加密切地关注用于描述艾滋病毒治疗相关研究的语言，并呼吁持续、重要和战略性的参与，以确保术语可接受且更准确。