This article in the Independent suggests that male circumcision might be reconsidered as an option by the public in light of its health benefits in preventing AIDS.
Times writer Andrew Sullivan (still my favourite blog) suggests that while he opposes male circumcision as sexual mutilation, he makes an exception for it as a preventive measure against AIDS.
On this, I'm afraid I have to disagree. There is already a much better solution to AIDS in Africa (and elsewhere) than something as odious as male circumcision.
Unfortunately it is one that is still objected to on grounds that are purely theological and not rational. It's an objection that is literally killing millions.
Next thing you know somebody is going to start calling for voluntary castration as an AIDS preventative rather than consider the screamingly obvious.