Biomedical Engineering

If it works as advertised, and if the side effects are not as bad as the disease, it is a good development.

Unfortunately it is only a new tool that might not be used because the root cause of the problem is education. Once the people are educated properly, the AIDs problem will be contained without much medical intervention needed.

There are only two professionals that can save Africa. Teachers and engineers. They need potable water to survive and avoid catching the vast majority of the diseases they suffer from. They need education to avoid being taken advantage by their own and everybody else and learn about birth control and STD.

Money invested in medical treatment does not solve any problem, is just prolongs the agony.

OK...but there's a perfect, cheaper, effective 3-step solution already available.

1) Don't have sex until married.

2) Marry someone who abstained from sex (even with you) until married.

3) Only have sex with your spouse.

100% effective, every time.

Now, this freeze-the-semen coating...this would essentially be a highly advanced spermicide as well, preventing any chance of pregnancy, right? hmmm.
Combine the the two techniques and we could wipe out AIDS and control global population growth in one generation.

As I stated above in my entry, this technology is meant for women that sometimes don't have a choice in the matter. In countries, such as Africa, women aren't empowered to make their partners wear condoms. If they are not empowered enough to make them use protection, what makes you think that they are empowered enough to say "no" and have their partner listen?

I find it somewhat naive to think that everyone is just going to abstain from sex, especially in the countries that it was designed for (poor sex education). Prevention is the best method to prevent future complications, but what if prevention is out of the picture? That is what this "invention" is made for.

countries such as africa?

I feel so bad. I wish I could say that I meant countries such as South Africa, but I was in a hurry as it was before class and didn't get a chance to proofread my comment. My apologies. I meant Continents such as Africa.

and one more step...

4) Issue a pistol with ammunition to each women who can then shoot any man between the legs who tries to rape her.

(sorry, posted in the wrong position)

and one more step...

4) Issue a pistol with ammunition to each women who can then shoot any man between the legs who tries to rape her.

Idealism or arrogance and ignorance?

Perhaps you might want to move out of your glass house and move into a padded cell in order to ensure that you don't ever need a blood transfusion.

Just because it is more convenient, does not mean it will become a widespread solution to prevent AIDS (physically or psychologically). Rapists probably would not wait for a gel. Even if it is successful in Africa I'm not sure it would be internationally accepted.

If one net effect is the continued promotion of sex as entertainment or a game rather than a gift of a loving intimate relationship, in my opinion this may not be a good thing.

Thanks for the informative post, Jaxy.

I am troubled by the ethical conundrum of your final question:

"If this is successful in Africa at preventing AIDS, do you think that it should be used internationally?"

So we use Africa as a "living lab" for remediating/ preventing lethal etiologies?

African Humans are OK to use a sLab animals/ experimental subjects? But not say, our own college students?

I realize that Africa happens to be one place where the problem is but the Ethical question of trials "there" vs. "here" seems to be at least as difficult to solve as the technical ones.

I am certain that cultural taboos regarding the use of gel will develop in these male centric cultures.

Ultimately, these things always end up culture problems, not technology problems.

And Darwin the ultimate judge.

milo

I didn't intend the question to infer that I though of Africa as a testing ground. I think that this article focused on women in Africa, because of the conditions at which they live. This technology is intended to be used as a way to empower women by giving them control over their body. Even if they aren't empowered to say 'no' to their spouses, significant others, etc., they can still protect themselves from the consequences.

I was just pointing out that there are only really two ways to prevent AIDS: abstinence and condoms. It wouldn't hurt to have more options out there, wouldn't you agree? Just like the various forms of birth control, I believe that having more choices leads to better protection and prevention.

If given the choice, why not have the technology available to all? I think that this article was just pointing out that Africa needs this technology most, due to the prevalence of disease.

I apologize if it seemed that I think Africa should be used as a "living lab", because I do not believe that at all. I think they were singled out due to significant necessity of the technology, not because they are needed as guineau pigs for the rest of the world. If this technology works, I would rather the resources be targeted to impovershed areas as opposed to less needing continents/countries.

Jaxy, I didn't read it as "You thought of itas a testing ground"; I read it as "it seems that THE SYSTEM" seems to make it so.

I'm big on increasing degrees of freedom, (Options) However, the technology is not the main hurdle, the culture of abuse and no freewill is the major actor here. Technology is only a stop gap in this situation. root cause is cultural, a sustainable solution must address culture.

I agree if it is effective it should be made available to all, I just see an ethical issue in how this process seems to be developing. Lets give it to those with the most desperation and least power to consider it, rather than ...

NO APOLOGY NECESSARY, It wasn't you or your point. It was the ethical foundation of the question itself. In professional work, we need to separate the message from the messenger. Unless they are infact inseparable...

I would rather the resources be MADE AVAILABLE WHEREVER NEEDED, not just those designated impoverished by "my standards". To ANY woman faced with no choice, difficult choice. Not just the "impoverished ones."

No harm, no foul, great topic. Great issue.

milo

Really? I read the article as, there is a real problem in Africa and now they are trying to find ways to rectify the situation. The conditions in Africa make it difficult. The heat is an obstacle for the technology to surpass. It is pinpointed at helping women in Africa as opposed to using the area as a testing ground.

I suppose the true test will be what happens to the technology once it matures? Is it readily available for women in need, or does it become mass-commercialized? We will see.

In countries where women are not empowered to control their bodies are sodomized and abused in other ways which will not protect them from HIV infections.