Is this unethical or just plain murder?

Karim and colleagues enrolled more than 3,000 sexually active women from the U.S., Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Some of the women used the PRO 2000 product, which blocks the cellular doorway HIV uses to enter cells.

Other women used the BufferGel product, which was not effective. The two active gels were compared to no gel or to a placebo gel.

Importantly, there were no significant safety issues with the gel. There were 36 HIV infections among women using PRO 2000 -- fewer than the 54 HIV infections among BufferGel users, the 51 HIV infections among placebo users, and 53 HIV infections among women using no gel.

Women in the study were encouraged to have their partners wear condoms during sex and were provided condoms for this purpose.

Although condom use was high, women who used the gel reported less condom use by their partners. That's troubling. It's a signal that overconfidence in protective gels might reduce use of a much more reliable means of preventing HIV transmission.

The NIH-sponsored trial did not prove PRO 2000 effective. That will be up to a larger, U.K.-sponsored trial involving nearly 9,400 women in Africa. That study should be finished by the end of the summer.

MY NOTES: Scientists gave an experimental gel to women to test if it prevents against AIDS. They gave another group a buffer gel which is even less effective than the first. And they gave another group a placebo. Because they have the gels, obviously they had sex without a condom more often than if they didn't have the gel. Also, this study seems stupid to me. How do they know that the women with the PRO 2000 didn't have sex without condoms more than the women using the other gels? They don't. This seems very unethical to me and is basically getting more people infected for some stupid experiment that has no basis or validity to it. What is this world coming to?

6ofUS - Do you think that these women knew what they were doing? Give me a break. These scientists could have said anything to get them to partake in the experiment.

I don't even have the words to explain how wrong this is. Please provide a link or some reference for this. It was not even performed in a scientific manner, there are way too many variables here. The biggest one is the men, their numbers, their health, their ability to get some, the woman's willingness to these men, and so on. How do you expect me to believe this drivel? It's not even a matter of right or wrong at this point, the conclusions will be useless, the data thrown out because there is no way to control the variables unless they are allowing the same men to sleep with each female in turn.

I'm calling your bluff. I think you're full of it and you made this up.

Edit: I think it's dumb as hell and I'm still right on one of my points "The study, while not conclusive, provides a glimmer of hope to millions of women at risk for HIV, especially young women in Africa," study leader Salim S. Abdool Karim, PhD, MBChB, director of South Africa's AIDS research center, says in a news release.
How pathetic, not conclusive and a glimmer of hope. I was wrong, on the reality of the study, but right on the results, a waste of time.

Neither as long as they were told that some would have a placebo. That's how controlled experiments work. You have to include a control group and the groups have to be told the truth, but the same truth. And that is normally that you may or may not have the test drug.

They were no worse off participating than they would have been not participating. The fact that they engaged in risky behavior is really their own doing.

The whole point here was to find if the drug would be effective in the real world. If it leads to more risky behavior, that has to be taken into account. You might just be better off without it period.

I don't think I'd be in line to test out a preventative HIV product. The responsibility lies with the individual who signed on for such a risky thing.

>> Were they aware they were testing an experimental HIV prevention product? From the article you posted, it seems they did know this. From that, I infer they did know what they were doing.

I'm sure it was done with consent with both the males and females. So it's not unethical, might be a bit strange, but not unethical if done with consent.

- Add on - Well if you disagree with me, then why even ask this question if you already have an opinion about it? You wanted our opinions and I gave you mine. You may disagree but you asked for it.

So, the fact that these women were sexually active with persons who were infected with AIDs has no bearing on what is or is not ethical?

Interesting topic... but my morals would have been to why they allowed these women to be infected anyway...

If they knowingly expose people to aids its murder isn't it?

Um, I think it is both! How disturbing!

Unfortunately experimentation on humans is always on the line of unethical. If a treatment works you are denying the control a valuable treatment. If it is hazardous you have harmed a group of humans. If you read about the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, of the past generations you can get sick. The thought that humans could be so misused. http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp...

I don't see anything at all unethical. The participants were told to use condoms, they were told the gel was experimental, and any risky behavior was the fault of the people engaging in it, not the people observing the results.

If I drive my car into a wall and die, whose fault is it? The maker of the wall, the maker of the car, the maker of the road, or mine?

But you're not really asking for opinions. You're just asking for people to agree with you (and insulting those who don't). Grow a pair and accept that not everybody thinks the same way you do.

don't think it's unethical. Nobody was encouraged to have unprotected sex. In contrary, they seem to have gotten free condoms which might not have been available to them otherwise. They were not encouraged to have sex. They just behaved like they would have done anyway, except that they did use a gel in addition. they probably received some financial compensation for those efforts. If the study was done correctly, none of the participant should have known whether they received a placebo or a possibly active substance. If they were informed properly they would have known that it is possible that they did receive a placebo. Possibly troubling is the quality of the information they received before participating, but I can't really tell from that paragraph. The ones who received the potentially active gel really should not know that. All should be completely aware that they don't know what version of the treatment they received.

I do not think that that experiment properly done would increase risky sex, in contrary, given that they handed out condoms, it probably decreased it. Particularly as a number of countries with participants are poor countries and the cost of condoms usually does not allow people to use them. In such countries condom use is usually low (check abstract below). So in total they probably prevented quite a number of AIDS infections. You could therefore argue that not doing the experiment would be irresponsible... also it is irresponsible not to want to find a way to prevent AIDS infections.

In addition medical studies on humans do have to be approved e.g. by the FDA or a review board. You can't just go out and do any experiment which comes into your head.