tl;dr?
> He learned how latex condoms are made (by dipping phallic molds into vats of liquid latex, which is peeled off after it dries), and how they are regulated (the Food and Drug Administration considers condoms medical devices and dictates how they are manufactured and labeled).
edit: Main points seem to be that the FDA
- encourages latex, through labeling and testing requirements
- limits the range of sizes of condoms
- tests only vaginal intercourse, there can be no anal-sex specific condoms
[0] http://www.theyfit.co.uk/pages/ordering-from-outside-of-euro...
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) 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.)