This is one of the conclusions drawn as a result of meetings between the World Health Organization, The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis. Experts from all three organizations met to analyze previous published and unpublished works to estimate the impact of an extensive male circumcision program.

“The impact at a population level depends on the frequency of circumcision and the prevalence of HIV,” said Dr. Ronald Gray, lead researcher of circumcision trials in Uganda. The published numbers apply to areas in which more than 15 percent of the population has HIV, and in which more than 80 percent of men are uncircumcised.

As of yet, no research has shown any correlation between male circumcisions and male-to-male HIV transmission. Thus the estimations also assume the majority of HIV transmission in the population is heterosexual.

Using these parameters, the study is only applicable to at-risk areas including regions in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya. However, predictions say that if almost all men in such an area were circumcised, the risk of HIV infection in males could potentially be halved.

The benefits of circumcision are not limited to protection from HIV infection. Circumcised males are also less likely to contract several sexually transmitted diseases, including herpes and syphilis. Women would benefit indirectly from the decreased likelihood of encountering an infected partner. Moreover, in previous studies, females experienced lower risk of genital ulcers and other bacterial infections when their partners were circumcised.

Results from a Kenyan trial indicate that the effects of one circumcision surgery are life-long. The greatest long-term effects thus would arise when males are circumcised before they engage in sexual activity.

This would seem to support the common United States practice of circumcising males as infants. Experts concluded that the results of widespread infant circumcision would not be apparent for 20-25 years afterwards, but would likely be highly significant.

However, for now this practice remains a hotbed of controversy due cultural, moral, religious, and historic differences. Because the results of this study do not apply to a country such as the U.S., the results do not support circumcision in the U.S.

Dr. Gray was also hesitant to fully support infant circumcision in the U.S. When asked what his advice to new parents would be, he simply said “I would recommend they receive full information on short-term risks and potential life time benefits, and then make an informed decision.” He also does not believe that the U.S. should take steps to promote circumcision nationally.

The controversy surrounding infant circumcision is only one hindrance to the successful implementation of an extensive male circumcision program. Availability of finances and qualified medical personnel will present huge obstacles to overcome, particularly in the areas most in need.

So far, no governments have succeeded in getting an effective male circumcision program off the ground.  It is “a failure of political will,” says Gray.

For more information, please see the study in the Public Library of Science and the New York Times article for more about the circumcision debate.