3 ms·
"That's given the techniques used so far." By definition, looking at history does precisely that. I am familiar with Lewis group and and wish more people were
by photoJ 10y ago
"That's given the techniques used so far." By definition, looking at history does precisely that.
I am familiar with Lewis group and and wish more people were also. Thanks for the links, as its nice to see the background for those not familiar. Definitely worth an upvote IMHO.
My concern with this the belief that this is is a steady march where "New resistant strains and new antibiotics to fight those strains is a constant inevitable march of evolution" implies there is no need to be concerned. New technology may save lives, just as unproven carbon neutralizing tech may stop green house issues, but today, at this moment, there is no proven tech that obviates this dangers. While, we hope and believe, that new tech will solve many problem, the widely held scientific view point on AMR is that it is an unsolved problem that is going to kill a lot of people. Which IMHO is pretty dire.
- dluan 10y agoMy point is, the inevitable march is driven by the market pipeline created by the Glaxosmithkline, Merck, and Amgen's of the world more than anything else. A good black swan event disrupts this to some extent, but not really. As long as there is a new MRSA, there is a host of new antibiotics being developed. This means there is always an arm race that requires lots of investment, but this pipeline we have set up today is far from optimal. Changing IP rules is a good place to start.