I'm just wondering why you think they would not feel that as scientists/doctors, they were "above" being influenced by popular opinion/politics? I don't know one way or the other, but I'm eager to hear what you have to say about it. Thanks!
Well, I'm not the person you asked, but my perspective is that I'd hope they'd be influenced by being given notice that we (parents) expect them to consider all relevant studies and their worth. So pointing out the why's behind skepticism of the HIV study, and pointing out the repeatable and verifiable result of the sensitivity study (as well as pointing out again and again that it exists and people KNOW it exists) would not so much be trying to sway them to popular opinion. It would be functioning as a watch dog who says, "You as a scientist/doctor should be considering the evidence and crafting a thoughtful and ethical policy statement in light of it."
Remember that, all things being equal as far as the validity of the AIDS studies go, "potential benefits" and "known reduction of sexual sensitivity/circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis" are very different animals. And one should trump the "potential" or "theoretical" benefit of the other, especially where such small statistics (i.e., protection against penile cancer, UTIs) are concerned.
That's why I think the letters should be useful. And I hope hope hope that they WILL be useful.