How condoms for men could be a thing of the past
University of Utah bioengineer Patrick Kiser analyzes polymers used to develop a new kind of AIDS-preventing vaginal gel for women.
(Credit: The University of Utah)For years, researchers have been working on microbicides (intravaginal gels, rings, and films) that can prevent the transmission of viruses such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Only a handful ever made it to human clinical trial, and ran into issues such as women not using them, or the antiviral drugs in the microbicides not lasting long enough. Some microbicides even seemed to increase the risk of transmission.
Now, researchers at the University of Utah seem to have greatly improved on a microbicide they first wrote about in 2006, according to a study published this week in the journal Advanced Functional Materials.
Their original molecular condom was applied as a liquid, which then turned into a gel coating at body temperate, and then turned liquid again in the presence of semen (which alters pH balance to be less acidic), thereby triggering the release of an anti-HIV drug. Problem was, few antiviral drugs bind and attach to HIV in semen, and high temperatures tended to prevent the gel from turning to liquid to activate the drug at all.
Their new condom works in the opposite way, starting as a gel but becoming semi-solid in response to pH changes caused by the introduction of semen, thereby forming a nanoscopic mesh of crosslinked molecules so tightly woven that they form a serious barrier to the virus:
The new gel is applied as a gel, and then becomes more solid and impenetrable as changes in pH alter the strength of the bond between the gel's two key components, both of which are polymers, or long, chain-like molecules made of many smaller, repeating units: PBA, or phenylboronic acid, and SHA, or salicylhydroxamic acid.
According to the University of Utah press release, the mesh of molecules--at 30 to 50 nanometers wide--should be able to block any HIV particle, which is two to three times thicker (roughly 100 nanometers wide). This should also block sperm, which measure 5,000 to 10,000 nanometers (5 to 10 microns). One way to think about this nano scale is that a strand of human hair is generally about 100,000 nanometers wide (100 microns), making it 10 to 20 times thicker than sperm and 2,000 to 3,333 times thicker than an HIV particle.
What if the virus were to get past the double barrier of this nanoscopic mesh and the accompanying antiviral drug? The study's senior author, Patrick Kiser, an associate professor of bioengineering at the University of Utah's College of Engineering, says that after sex the vagina gradually becomes more acidic again, and any residual HIV particles would be inactivated by not only this acidity, but also the antiviral drug (such as tenofovir) within the remaining gel.
The team's research, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, could be truly groundbreaking for women the world over. Still, one of the problems researchers ran into during the 2006 study--that some women failed to use the gel--won't necessarily be solved by a better gel.
It remains unclear whether failure to use the gel was because sex was forced and women didn't have time to apply it, or they just didn't believe it would work, or they were ridiculed, or felt ashamed, etc. What is clear is that hurdles remain when it comes to condoms, even if the chemistry is good.
Elizabeth Armstrong Moore is a freelance journalist based in Portland, Ore. She has contributed to Wired magazine, The Christian Science Monitor, and public radio. Her semi-obscure hobbies include unicycling, slacklining, hula-hooping, scuba diving, billiards, Sudoku, Magic the Gathering, and classical piano. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
I don't think Gay qualifies as being a "race". It's more of a choice imo.
Still not sure what Malcolm's on about.
Please re-read my comment and beat_elite's response, and then try again. [CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]
The human race evolved around reproduction between MEN and WOMEN. The arguments about getting the same protections that married men and women have is irrelevant. Common sense.
The first thing that comes up in an discussion like this is racial equality . Let me challenge that.
I can change my skin color to whatever I like as long I have my money ready but my genes is always going to link me back to my race.
Conclusion,
In my belief, being homosexual needs to be treated as an mental illness. Anyways, I also see the bigger picture that some people being gay is a part America super minority so I can't hate them. I just have to deal with it and not allow it to be entrenched into our laws. So yes I did vote for Florida Amendment 2 and will still vote against homosexuality. So gays and lesbian just needs to enjoy themselves. Be glad you live in a free country and stop trying to force an issue that is immorally wrong. What if someone say that they wanted to marry a gorilla. People will think that person has lost their mind. Its is also a crime for people having sex with animals. So don't push it...lol.
Now on to the topic.....I wouldn't trust that liquid. What if hits the market and someone gets a bad bottle of this and doesn't work. Another way for lawyers to sue. Latex, you can control if it pops or not. This liquid may not harden up enough or the anti-drug does not take effect
Dawkins, in the unlikely event that you're reading this, you are not a physicist. Get over it.
Sorry, but no psychiatrist who isn't in some way mentally ill themselves would support the idea that homosexuality is a 'mental illness' because not only have they medical degrees plus 4 years of on the job training but they're also not delusional.
Every single part of your argument is founded 'this is true because I say it is'. Why? Because that's all you have. Pathetic.
I have never appreciated seeing this kind of self-excusing bigotry anywhere but supposedly educated people working with the latest tech should know better. [CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]
Gay men however do have a higher susceptibility (even over lesbians), mostly because anal sex has a chance of tearing the rectal lining, allowing bodily fluids faster and easier access to the blood stream. (A vagina can more easily withstand sexual activity for obvious reasons, and has less chance of tearing).
This isn't morality talking, just simple physiology.
As for the sexual attraction itself? The American Psychiatry(?) Association ceased calling homosexuality a mental illness in the early 1970's.
Most religions do claim it to be a moral abhorrence, yes (it does after all contradict basic reproduction - then again so does oral sex of any kind, no matter who the parties are). However, the most popular of religions, Christianity, admonishes you to detest the sin and avoid it... but more importantly, it instructs you to love the sinner. Seems that too many alleged Christians forget that last part.
Anyway who cares if its a choice or not, (personally I believe its not a choice). but even if it was, its just someone doing what makes them happy, and really dosent affect anyone else negatively, Im sick of preachers and righteous rednecks yelling about how the "homos are tunin' the nation gay"
As for GRID and the beginning of AIDS, the only reason that its more likely for gay men to get it is because blood is more likley to be exchanged, and the only reason GRID was associated with gays was because of their overt promiscuity in the 70's.
Also. to get AIDS from kissing, you would have to swallow a gallon of saliva.
And finally, the chances of getting HIV/AIDS during intercourse is about 1 in 1000, no koke
As to the article, yeah a great thing for hetero sex but it doesn't help gays much.
No-one has to worry about their safety or what people will think when meeting up with someone of the opposite sex in public so yeah, a lot of gay sex/relationships are behind closed doors and a lot of gay men are still very much in the closet.
Something inherently amusing about your screen name making a post on this thread. =)
But, yeah, gotta agree about the "no" part. I mean, I'm sure there's more than a few people that are curious enough to act on things, but even then, a fair number of that fraction of the overall hetero population will have their curiosity satisfied enough not to partake, again.
I know that it's a popular argument to say that somehow the majority of men are gay, but sorry - the facts don't back you up on that one. Even factoring in those men with 'beards' (that is, gay but married to a woman), I sincerely doubt you'd get past the 8% that the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force came up with (of course, Gallup found that folks in general think the percentage is far higher... check it out: http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx ) FWIW, the last US census showed less than 1% of households as having a gay couple in it.
Even the ultra optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on PoV) count of 25% isn't anywhere near a majority.
Disease and pregnancy prevention are both reasons why men may use condoms. Both can also potentially ruin the lives of these men and the ones they love.
To put things into perspective, there was an article on GQ magazine where a gay Iraqi came out after the U.S. invasion in 2003, saying how great it felt to "come out of the closet" now. Saddam would not allow that type of behavior and would kill all gays. So I think that's great that we live in America, where you can still "do your thing" and not worry that the secret police is going to take your ass (no pun intended) to kill you for what you're doing, let alone push your agenda on the "normal people".
T-Tran, read the above article, you "patriot" you.
"To put things into perspective, there was an article on GQ magazine where a gay Iraqi came out after the U.S. invasion in 2003, saying how great it felt to "come out of the closet" now. Saddam would not allow that type of behavior and would kill all gays. "
That's still happening.
"let alone push your agenda on the "normal people". "
Seems like a lot of people are pushing their agenda on gays. This is a democracy not a theocracy.
Ask yourself this question: What am I so afraid of?
I am quite interested in the amazing possibilities of this new discovery but it is being clouded by all the *******, (Gay and Straight), ranting about their own agenda.
How about you get your own thread going and debate there...?
I would like to know more about the potential of this product and how hard working men and women invented and created such an amazing, revolutionary product that should help all humanity, not whether or not my sexual preference is acceptable to prima donna's that still dont know their own sexual orientation, ( or have refused to accept it).
I am not a homophobic and enjoy good friendships with both gay men and women, however this is a medical breakthrough - get off your horses and get your own thread...
nuff said
And why has no one just asked the simple question--and perhaps more telling, why didn't the article mention--does this "molecular condom" have any efficacy for anal sex?
And just going with simple math, there's a lot more heterosexual anal sex going on out there than homosexual anal sex.
That is a lot more revolutionary than the kind of sex Socrates liked oh, so, long ago. It would mean an end to the imbalance between men and women regarding the choice for children; an end to most - if not all - STD's as well as HIV; and an end to anyone's claim that somebody else is responsible for either infecting them or forcing them to bear children. Ah, now that's a major cultural change that is a lot more dramatic than diddling in the garden with the hose!
Or, perhaps we're dealing with a different kind of stereotype, because, after all this is C-Net. Maybe it's true that geeks do prefer the one-handed kind of sex! No partners is yet another alternative to guys or gals!
- by semmycom August 20, 2009 7:13 AM PDT
- Interesting article! However, there will still the need for getting yourself tested for STDs if you regurlarly have sex - http://www.frequentsexhealth.com - we are actively looking for affiliate partners who are interested in this subject!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(45 Comments)