Sex, Race, Class, and Molecular Condoms

Researchers at the University of Utah are reporting on a potentially new way for women to protect themselves from HIV transmission, with or without their partners’ help.

The microbicide, which they refer to as a “molecular condom” is a gel, which is inserted vaginally prior to intercourse. It starts as a liquid but turns semisolid in the presence of sperm, capturing the sperm and keeping it physically away from vaginal cells so HIV can’t infect them. The idea is to add an antiretroviral drug as well to double the impact. The researchers hope that human tests on the gel could start within three to five years.

This is all good, or at least hopeful news. But there was something about the press release for this project that is worth talking about. Consider the opening line of the release:

University of Utah scientists developed a new kind of “molecular condom” to protect women from AIDS in Africa and other impoverished areas.

And here are two quotes from the researchers that followed:

“We did it to develop technologies that can enable women to protect themselves against HIV without approval of their partner…This is important – particularly in resource-poor areas of the world like sub-Sahara Africa and south Asia where, in some age groups, as many as 60 percent of women already are infected with HIV. In these places, women often are not empowered to force their partners to wear a condom.”

“Due to cultural and socioeconomic factors, women often are unable to negotiate the use of protection with their partner,” says Julie Jay, the study’s first author and a University of Utah doctoral candidate in pharmaceutics and pharmaceutical chemistry.

The opening line was jarring for me. Right away I’m wondering why something like this is developed for women in “African and other impoverished areas” and not simply all women.

And the quotes from the researchers are true enough. But I can’t help but think that the description of “resource-poor” areas applies just as well to San Francisco or D.C. as it does to sub-Sahara Africa. And I’m just not sure women (when taken as a whole population to be studied) in so called developed countries are any more empowered to force their partners to wear condoms than women in so called developing countries.

I get that the populations are different in a very important respect; HIV rates. I also get that this is probably a funding issue. To get money the researchers likely had to apply for funds to do research in Africa. It’s their responsibility then to write up their results and their press releases to reflect that funding directive. I’m not blaming the players here, just calling the game out a bit.

From a grass roots perspective, thinking only of the people who are meant to be helped by this research, who is served by limiting the use of this to Africa? And how are funding priorities indirectly (or directly) shaping the research that’s done and the ways that research data are translated into action? There’s no doubt that we need this research, and more of it. I just wish that the messed up systems of power weren’t so effective at penetrating down to this level.

Read more – EurekAlert: An HIV-blocking gel for women

Source