Disheartened by the repeated failure of vaccines and microbicide gels, some AIDS experts say it's time to spend less money on developing high-tech cures and more money on low-tech prevention.
The latest -- and perhaps most frustrating -- failed AIDS initiative was reported last week, when researchers announced that Merck's much-anticipated vaccine may actually have left recipients more vulnerable to infection.
As the Washington Post reports, a massive program proposed by the
United Nations "projected only about 1 percent of the money funding either circumcision or efforts to change sexual behavior. There was no line item for expanding access to contraception." While the proportion doesn't necessarily reflect worldwide AIDS spending, it contains a general truth about research and prevention priorities.
Though I'm hardly qualified to determine precisely how funding should be allotted, it does seem clear that low-tech programs deserve more money. But I hope that increased funding will be accompanied by a renewed attention to unexpected eventualities.
A couple months ago, we posted on the tragic news that, after Botswanan mothers followed the advice of global health groups to prevent HIV transmission by giving their babies formula instead of breast milk, the infants ended up malnourished and vulnerable to other, equally lethal diseases.
This doesn't mean low-tech should be abandoned, but it does show how complicated it can be to turn scientifically valid knowledge into real-world success.
Rethinking AIDS Strategy After a String of Failures [Washington Post]
Image: Geordie Mott
See Also:
