Baseball, you should start deleting your own posts. You reveal too much about the way your mind works.
Unethical research is bad research. We don't starve people to death, so we don't need to know what the Nazis discovered about the way human bodies fall apart when people are starved and frozen to death. We don't let people die of syphilis when treatment is available, so the end stage results of untreated syphilis is not useful information and not scientific.
Well adjusted adults don't cut bits off their genitals and their children's genitals, so we don't call this science.
Tuskegee has been roundly condemned by every international research organization in existence. The President of the United States issued an apology for Christ's sake.
A major reason Auvert's conveniently truncated studies are done is because he's been getting recognition and news time, not necessarily because the research is useful. He's "the star of this conference":
www.kosaids.org - Approximately a 65%
Auvert admits that the 21 month study is "a very small amount of time". He says, "We likely will have to integrate male circumcision in the existing program along with condom use, with reduction of sexual activity, and with voluntary HIV counseling and testing. But for the moment, it's too early to promote this as an HIV prevention method."
Even he's not calling it science. This story gets overblown in the U.S. media because we are the only developed country that still circumcises a majority of its males. If you've followed the whole circumcision thing for very long you know that calls to universal circumcision are frequent enough to be passé.
Besides, with non-invasive prevention methods available, why would anyone talk about cutting off part of their dick unless they were poor, uneducated and paid, like Auvert's subjects, or already cut and looking for a reason, like most U.S. men of the age of sexual maturity.
It is extremely unlikely that Auvert will be circumcising any of his countrymen in the cause of AIDS prevention. I think Auvert is fairly clear about what he is doing, but his "research" sends very mixed messages, especially when not placed in its proper historical, medical and cultural perspective. This is the insight I am trying to provide, notwithstanding the vultures and hyenas.