- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
Clinics offering discounted or free circumcision for men in sub-Saharan Africa are experiencing long lines and keen interest as word spreads that the operation provides partial protection against HIV and may offer other benefits, researchers report.
But governments in the region have been slow to embrace the measure. As a result, demand in many countries is far surpassing availability.
“Right now, it’s a school holiday here and the clinics are absolutely packed with people,” says Robert Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who is working on a male circumcision project in Kisumu, Kenya. The clinics where Bailey is doing research offer circumcision to boys age 10 and up, although most clients are men ages 20 to 25.
The experience in Kisumu is being replicated sporadically across southern and East Africa, areas where large swaths of men haven’t been circumcised and where HIV has hit the continent hardest.
Despite the lack of male circumcision in these parts of Africa, there’s long been an undercurrent in favor of the procedure in these areas, says Daniel Halperin, a global health expert at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. In the 1990s, focus groups and surveys indicated plenty of acceptance for the operation, he says.
Around that time, researchers first documented that areas of Africa where male circumcision was widespread had fewer cases of HIV.
Now men in southern and East Africa are actively seeking out the operation. “They’re more energized,” says Ronald Gray, a physician and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who has worked extensively in Uganda.
This cultural shift follows the release of three clinical trials in 2005 and 2007 showing that circumcision reduces a man’s risk of acquiring HIV by at least half.
Those trials led to endorsement of the surgery by the World Health Organization, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — key funding sources — as a public health measure against HIV.
African media have seized upon male circumcision as a hot story in the past few years, leading many men to openly pursue circumcision where it’s not the norm. In Uganda — where Gray is doing field work and where only one-fourth of males are circumcised — a musical group called the “Circ Squad” got circumcised and made a music video about the issue.
But the newfound circumcision chic comes with a problem: Although men and adolescent boys are queuing up in droves, many medical facilities in sub-Saharan Africa aren’t up to the task. In Uganda, Gray says, most men get put on a waiting list.
In neighboring Kenya, Bailey is seeing the same thing. “There’s much more demand than we can meet,” he says.
Despite increasing demand and even new sources of funding, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, African governments have been slow to promote circumcision as a public health measure and to mobilize resources.
Without subsidization from governments or outside agencies, the costs of the operation have limited it mainly to middle- and upper-class men. Even recently, Halperin notes, a public clinic in Swaziland that gets support from outside sources was charging about $40 for a circumcision, “not an insignificant amount for many African men,” he says.
The slow response — despite strong public demand — is the result of indifference shown in past years by international funding agencies and African governments toward the benefits of male circumcision, Halperin says. “If we had an AIDS vaccine that was half as effective as circumcision, the donors would have been all over it,” he says.
“Although evidence from the trials and biological work are very clear, it’s difficult for policy makers to get their minds around the idea that we ought to use surgery to prevent a disease,” Gray says.
Laboratory studies have tendered an explanation for the protection offered by circumcision. Uncircumcised men retain soft foreskin around the head of the penis, providing an ideal region for HIV to infect. Circumcision removes this tissue, leaving only skin that’s toughened with keratin, a protein that resists viral invasion, Bailey says.
Make no mistake, circumcision is only partially protective. And some people have worried that men, once circumcised, would become careless and have more unprotected sex. But early studies of the issue show little evidence of that happening.
For men who are ambivalent about being circumcised, the new wave in Africa offers an opportunity to have a hygienic version of the operation in a clinic. For those who come from groups with traditions of circumcising boys, the clinical availability is safer than a traditional ceremony that carries risks of complications, says Neil Martinson, a public health physician at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Recent studies suggest that circumcised men are less likely to get other sexually transmitted diseases, particularly herpes and human papillomavirus, says Gray.
Halperin notes that men and women often cite sexual pleasure, perceived to be greater if the man is circumcised, as a reason for the operation.
Indeed, women seem to have plenty of say in the decision making, Bailey says. “Many women prefer men who are circumcised because of the hygiene issue,” he says. “And our clinics are packed with mothers bringing their sons in to get circumcised. “
Circumcising young male children raises a question of how to best allocate health resources, Martinson says. While it may seem to make sense in the long run to circumcise all boys, “that might divert resources to [infant] kids when there are 16- and 18-year-olds who should be getting circumcised and who have a clear, direct risk of contracting HIV,” he says.
Halperin says Swaziland, which has opened clinics on weekends just for male circumcision, and Botswana, with a government-funded promotional program, are leading the way among countries that currently have high HIV burdens and low circumcision rates. Rwanda is planning a large-scale male circumcision campaign focused on the country’s military and possibly university students. Zambia has received substantial outside funding to gear up a male circumcision program, but still has long waiting lists.
South Africa has yet to develop a policy regarding male circumcision. But in Orange Farm, just outside of Johannesburg, researchers with the French National AIDS Research Agency are circumcising and then monitoring young men in an effort to document the long-term effects on community HIV rates. Surgeon Dino Rech, who works at Orange Farm, says doctors are circumcising 20 to 100 men per day, by far the largest program in South Africa.
The results of this study and the effect of mass male circumcision in Africa won’t be known for years, says Lawrence Gostin, an attorney at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, Gostin is working with UNAIDS to develop a checklist of issues that countries can use as they put male circumcision to work as a public health measure. These issues include safety evaluations for clinics, sensitivity to privacy issues and ensuring access to poor people and those in remote areas. The outline appears in the Dec. 3 Journal of the American Medical Association.
Still up in the air is the knotty question of whether to screen men for HIV before circumcision, he says. Excluding HIV-positive men and boys could constitute discrimination, breach confidentiality and cause stigmatization, Gostin and UNAIDS’ Catherine Hankins note in the JAMA article.
Safety will be a crucial issue. Since high complication rates from surgery could derail a campaign promoting it, countries will have to make sure clinics have sterile facilities, proper instruments, trained personnel and close follow-up of patients, says Ingrid Katz, an infectious disease physician at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Katz and Alexi Wright of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston discuss the issue in the Dec. 4 New England Journal of Medicine.
Found in: Body & Brain
- Auvert B et al. Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. 2005. PLoS Medicine, Vol. 2, p. e298.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
Bailey RC et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. 2007. Lancet, Feb. 24, Vol. 369, p. 643-656.
Gray RH et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. 2007. Lancet, Feb 24, Vol. 369, p. 657-666. - Seppa, N. 2004. Better-off circumcised? Foreskin may permit HIV entry, infection. Science News 165(April 3):212. Available to subscribers at [Go to]
- Seppa, N. 2005. Defense mechanism: Circumcision averts some HIV infections. Science News 168(Oct. 29):275. Available at [Go to]
- Seppa, N. AIDS Avoidance: More studies find that circumcision deters HIV
December 23, 2006; Vol.170 #29 (p. 405). [Go to]
- Katz IT and Wright AA. Circumcision—A surgical strategy for HIV prevention in Africa. 2008. New England Journal of Medicine, Dec. 4, Vol. 359, p. 2412-2415.
Gostin LO and Hankins CA. Male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy in sub-Sharan Africa. 2008. Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec. 3, vol. 300, p. 2539-2541.
- Sun may not be a 'Goldilocks' star
- Moon crash reveals crater held water
- Plastics ingredients could make a boy's play less masculine
- B vitamin outperforms another drug in keeping arteries clear
- Mummies reveal heart disease plagued ancient Egyptians


Circumcision has become a sacred cow in our society, like the instruments of recent high finance...beyond question.
The likelyhood of it curing Africa's HIV epidemic is close to nil. Yet, just like investment banking proceeded with few asking any questions, the promotion of circumcision careens on. It is more than a little disturbing, especially to those of us who know what is lost.
When does science become scientific?
If the science is so strong, perhaps someone should tell the AMA, the AAP, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, etc.
The AMA already got burned by Wiswell's unreproducible data.
In the September, 2006, issue of the "Journal of AIDs," a team of medical researchers including Professor King K. Holmes, M.D., Ph.D., leading expert on STDs in the U.S.A., published the results of their small statistical study showing that post-sex penis washing and male circumcision were independently associated with reducing the risk of HIV infections in a sample of 160 or so male members of the Luo tribe in Kenya.
The American studies of male circumcision your article cites as grounds for promoting this practice to reduce HIV infections in African countries are flawed because the research teams responsible for them failed to inquire about post-sex washing practices of the men they studied. So how to tell what was most responsible for the documented drop
in HIV infections: the circumcision or the washing?
I think the following analogy suggests how the resulting American-led campaign to promote circumcision will strike people should already underway statistical research on the effectiveness of post-sex penile washing vis-a-vis HIV infections confirm and refine the groundbreaking studies conducted by Holmes et al, and also by Nigel O'Farrell at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases.
The following analogy sums up my own thinking about how this circumcision campaign will strike members and protectors of tribes for whom it is customary to practice post-sex washing rather than male circumcision: If you want to improve the dental health of men with cavities in their teeth, does it make more sense to teach people about dental hygiene or to pull all their teeth out?
If uncircumcised, 1 in 3 males get a foreskin-related condition over their lifetime that requires medical attention, many will die from one of these. Others will siffer. Many of their female partners will also suffer considerable morbidity and some will also die because of a disease passed on by their uncircumcised male partner(s).
Infancy is the best time to circumcise (under local anesthetic) since it is simpler, cheaper, more convenient, very low risk (only 1 in 500 have a minor, easily and immediately treated adverse effect), and gives the best cosmetic outcome. For more information see the biggest, most academically-sound review on male circumcision in the world at www.circinfo.net.
If you want to actually participate, please respond to and attempt to refute what others have posted. A simple pat on the back for bad science is not only gratuitous, it is spilling blood for no truly beneficial result.
I guess this is like free advertising for you. Oh, and Brian, what is the percentage of people with penile cancer who are circumcised? 37%, according to Maden's research in the US. What is the rate of meatal stenosis, typically caused by circumcision? Estimated to be as high as 20%. That is one in five people who need an operation, to correct a problem that is typically only seen in circumcised men. What about buried penis, when they take off too much dorsal skin, and the penis hides under the pubic fat pad? Please respond. I would love to hear it.
We do know that male circ raises the level of male to female HIV. Also, female circumcision (FGM) has been "shown" to lower HIV transmission. Why does western medicine support one mutilation and not the other? The bad science argues that there is a decrease of from about 3.2% to 1.8% risk of getting HIV. That is still a risk. Why not just use the condom and skip cutting off 20,000 fine touch nerve endings. In the US there is a greater chance that a baby will get MRSA from the surgery than HIV or any of the things Brian Morris talks about below. In fact the most extensive STD survey shows cut and natural are no different as to STDs. However, intact/natural has no Premature ejaculation issues (caused by scar and loss of sensory feedback) and mutilated men (circumcised) get ED years in advance of men with a natural penis.
The parts of the foreskin feel so good. Keep them, you will be happy you did when you are old.
Submitted by: Jack
Please login or register to participate.