First step: identify the network

Since the WHO/UNAIDS policy on circumcision and HIV is said to be based on the results of scientific studies, we should identify the assumptions made behind the relevant published articles, and the scientific record of the participants in the publication process.

I see that certain journals provide public access to the reviewing process for articles. See, for example, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/7/16/prepub, which traces the publication process for the article Modelling the public health impact of male circumcision for HIV prevention in high prevalence areas in Africa by Nagelkerke et al. One of the reviewers of the article was Catherine Hankins, the UNAIDS chief scientific adviser, who has been vocal in supporting her organization's encouragement of male circumcision. None of the reviewers appear to have raised problems with regard to the ethics of genital mutilation.

I congratulate the journal BMC Infectious Diseases on its open review policy, which aids the community in understanding the development of science and science policy, and how networks of scientists contribute to this process. The anti-MGM community would benefit from a study of such networks.