study indicated that a microbial gel might help shield women against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. But a lack of funding for follow-up studies presents a barrier to getting the gel into use, even in places where it could do the most good. Initial studies indicated that the gel, called Tenofovir, could reduce risk of HIV transmission to women by 39%–an important health development for women around the world who may be subjected to sexual encounters with men who refuse to practice safer sex, chiefly by wearing condoms. Though Western countries tend to see AIDS as a “gay disease,” globally the picture is much different. Out of the world’s estimated 33 million people living with HIV, just under 50%–16 million–are women, and typically women contract HIV through sex with men. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, there are 22 million people living with HIV, and more than half of them are women. A New York Times article reported that despite the promise held out to women by Tenofovir, the new microbicidal gel won’t help anyone if it can’t be made available–and before that can happen, further studies must be carried out. But that costs money, and the cash simply isn’t there.
The Times reported that it would cost $100 million for follow-up research; less than $60 million in funding has been secured. “We have to keep our eye on the prize,” Unaids scientific adviser Dr. Catherine Hankins told the New York Times. “It’s in reach. We have to close the funding gap and get the gel to women.” But there are other diseases and health concerns demanding research dollars, and some nations–such as Britain–have turned their attention elsewhere. “”H.I.V./AIDS is perceived to be very expensive research,” WHO scientist Tim Farley said, “and there’s a sentiment in the U.K. that it’s time to shift priorities.” The Times article cited health experts who point out that paying the costs of research and providing the means to reduce HIV transmission up front means savings down the line, when fewer people have contracted the virus–meaning that fewer will need life-long medication. “Donors should not be nickel and diming this research because by spending only $100 million they have a prospect of saving billions of dollars in treatment costs,” Center for Global Development economist Mead Over noted.
By Kilian Melloy
