Foreskin and the molecular politics of risk.

In this paper, I examine disputes over recent claims that male circumcision reduces HIV risk to suggest a complicated relationship between risk individualization and categorization. Whereas randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in sub-Saharan Africa appear to have provided key evidence for the World Health Organization's endorsement of male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, RCTs alone did not provide evidence for the underlying causal mechanism. For that, medical authorities have turned to histo-immunological studies of the foreskin's biomolecular vulnerability to HIV, thus molecularizing risk. Some actors used these studies both as a way of shoring up results of RCTs conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and as an important rationale in arguments for making neonatal circumcision more widely available. Others, however, resisted this move to generalize the RCT results to other parts of the world, citing both contextual differences in HIV transmission patterns and conflicting scientific details regarding the biomolecular basis of the foreskin's susceptibility. Nevertheless, by locating an abstract notion of relative risk in the body itself, I argue that histological studies of foreskin have played a key role in stabilizing male circumcision status as a new risk category, largely independent of a given individual's risk profile.