The most interesting thing is also depressing: there was a fairly well-known researcher at the University of Manitoba who was working on designing a better cond

The most interesting thing is also depressing: there was a fairly well-known researcher at the University of Manitoba who was working on designing a better condom in the early 1990's, and there is still work going on there today: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/condoms-treated-with-silver-nanoparticles-could-completely-inactivate-hiv-other-stds-researchers http://news.nationalpost.com/news/condoms-treated-with-silve... The work I recall from the '90's (I was a post-doc there, working in a different field) involved changes to both shape and design, with some kind of extra band around the base to prevent leakage and accidental slip-off. As near as I can tell, none of this research has had any impact on condoms as they are manufactured and sold. The best you see is a non-latex condom being sold now and then, but they never seem to stay on the market very long (they are generally more expensive). So the most pressing topic for research would seem to be going after the question, "We know all kinds of things about building a better condom, and have for decades, so why haven't the condoms we buy changed appreciably?" Some of this will be due to the difficulties of getting things past the FDA, particularly for smaller operations as the article suggests, but since we do see non-latex condoms from major manufacturers (http://www.walgreens.com/q/non-latex-condoms http://www.walgreens.com/q/non-latex-condoms) it is clearly not the case that the FDA makes stuff impossible. It may be there are economic issues at work as well, but I don't think the situation is so obvious that we can just apply $IDEOLOGY_OF_YOUR_CHOICE and say we're done. This is particularly true because condom availability isn't great outside the US, either (although what the US approves does have an influence on what gets sold elsewhere, I'm sure.)