New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Needle Exchange Programs Now Get Fed Support

More than a quarter century after the federal funding ban on needle exchange programs went into effect, it has quietly been almost completely lifted.

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

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.


In 1988 the U.S. government instituted a ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs for people who inject street drugs. Here’s a quote from an article in the July 1998 issue of Scientific American on HIV prevention:

“Access to clean needles can help protect those still using injection drugs. Exchange programs, despite the controversies they elicit, have been shown to lower the risk of viral infection in many studies worldwide. Six U.S. government–funded studies have found that needle exchanges help to reduce HIV transmission without leading to greater drug use.”

Later in the same piece: “Fears of encouraging drug abuse have proved unfounded: many studies have shown that needle availability does not increase the use of illegal drugs.”

The article was written by AIDS experts Thomas Coates and Chris Collins. I was their editor.

Now, more than a quarter century after the federal funding ban on needle exchange programs went into effect, it has quietly been almost completely lifted. A repeal of most parts of the ban was included in the major omnibus spending bill that passed at the end of 2015.

According to Buzzfeed news reporter John Stanton, key Republican supported finally came about in response to a recent and ongoing HIV outbreak in Indiana and the decision in Kentucky in 2015 to establish its own needle exchange program.

The reason I keep saying the ban was mostly overturned is that it’s still going to be illegal for federal money to cover the cost of the syringes themselves, presumably so members of Congress can say they’re not paying for needles. Fortunately, needles are cheap. And federal funds can now cover the other costs of needle exchange programs, such as facilities and staff. The change, though long overdue, is still welcome. As activists used to put it in the 1990s: “Dead addicts don’t recover.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe