dilemma for the folks at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has distributed an estimated 10 billion U.S.-made AIDS-preventing condoms in poor countries around the world.

Which makes me ask,  “Why are my federal tax dollars being used to purchase condoms which, in the African context (see post below), are ineffective anyway?”

Benedict believes that abstinence, not condoms, should be a key element in AIDS prevention.

Remarkably, as noted in this May 8, 2008 UC-Berkeley press release, some scientists at UC-Berkeley and the Harvard School for Public Health believe that the promotion of condoms in Africa is having a limited effect in controling the spread of the disease there.  

(The study was published in the May 9, 2008 edition of Science [vol. 320, no. 5877, pp. 749-750]; Science does not permit the dissemination of its content. You may pay for access to the article “Public Health: Reassessing HIV Prevention” here.)

According to the Science article, which I’ve read, while condom usage has been shown to reduce AIDS among high-risk groups including those involved in the sex trade (particularly Thailand) and among homosexuals, condoms are not the top contenders for reducing AIDS in Africa.

What are? Male circumcision and the reduction of multiple sexual partnerships.

The study notes that among those populations where male circumcision is common and concurrent sexual relationships are uncommon, the HIV-infection rate primarily has been confined to high-risk groups. Apparently, what doesn’t seem to be working are condoms, HIV testing, treatments of other sexually-transmitted diseases, vaccines, or for people 20 years of age or older, abstinence.

Also, the study suggests that male circumcision has significantly reduced the transmission of HIV among heterosexual population groups. So too have proactive, government-sponsored programs encouraging fewer sexual partners. (Hmmm. . . government-sponsored morality?)

The researchers go on to suggest that significant sources of funding would be better spent on programs showing the most success, rather than “traditional” programs such as condom promotion, that are making little impact in Africa. (As it turns out, it is the inconsistent use of condoms that make them ineffective in the African context.)

Which makes the comment by Ms. Rebecca Hodes, director of policy, campaign, and research of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, all the more curious. From the AP report:

[The pope's] opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans.

Unless Ms. Hodes can peer into the pope’s heart, her assessment of Benedict’s spiritual disposition is nothing more than a crass ad hominem attack on the pontiff. 

But, is her response unanticipated? Perhaps not. On this Treatment Action Campaign’s Web page, it appears that Ms. Hodes’s organization pushes sex education (curiously focusing on the American context) and condom usage. One of the links on the page references a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention article on condom effectiveness from 1993.

Which makes me ask:

• Why didn’t the AP report mention current research regarding condom ineffectiveness in reducing AIDS in Africa?
• Why doesn’t Ms. Hobes’s organization refer to current research regarding condom ineffectiveness in reducing AIDS in Africa?
• What does Ms. Hobes’s organization have to gain by promoting condom usage in Africa despite current research?
• Why does The New York Times, in publishing the AP report without qualification, continue to promote the “intolerant religious dogma vs. helpful practical science” myth?