August 3, 2007

Abstinence-Only Programs Fail

A British Medical Journal study finds that HIV-prevention abstinence-only programs don't work. Steve Mirsky reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Programs that encourage only abstinence from sex do not lower the risk of HIV infections in the United States. That’s the conclusion of a review published by University of Oxford researchers in the August 4th issue of the British Medical Journal.

Currently, a third of all the HIV prevention funding under the US Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief goes to abstinence only programs. Which limits funding available for other safer sex initiatives.

The Oxford researchers reviewed 13 US-based trials that examined over 15,000 subjects. The data suggest that abstinence only programs didn’t prevent sex or decrease frequency for those already having sex. Nor did the programs lower the incidents of unprotected sex. An accompanying editorial in the British Medical Journal notes that programs that promote condom use have been shown to lower the risk of HIV infection.

The US Senate has already agreed to spend another $141 million on abstinence only programs. Prediction: The new study will probably not change that appropriation. Don’t expect programs based on ideology to be affected by scientific findings.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American