4 ms·

Assuming it is correct to say that antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolve in response to the (over-/ab-)use of antibiotics - I wonder to what extent opposition t

Assuming it is correct to say that antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolve in response to the (over-/ab-)use of antibiotics - I wonder to what extent opposition to teaching evolution improves the chances of these kind of bacteria evolving. Disbelief in, and/or ignorance of how a process works is effectively giving that process a green light. Conversely, might the appearance of CRE bacteria might sway the evolution debate? Or to be more blunt, does a disbelief in evolution increase a nation's chances of collectively qualifying for a Darwin award?

meaty 14y ago
If bacteria can modify the host's behaviour (this is proven), perhaps your hypothesis is a certain type of bacteria's survival vector?
slapshot 14y ago
> Conversely, might the appearance of CRE bacteria might sway the evolution debate? No. It seems like an easy political point, but there's a lot more to the story. First, there are far easier and more visible examples of evolution. In UK schools, possibly because it's a nearby example, it is taught that the color of moths in London changed dramatically during the Industrial Revolution because light-colored moths were easy snacks for birds on newly soot-covered walls. There are more colorful examples closer at hand: most of the domesticated animals in the world are examples of evolution by artificial selection: cows today share little with cows 10,000 years ago, and corn today looks nothing like 10,000 years ago. Second, thanks to #1, the belief is often that "humans (special) didn't evolve from apes (animal)" --- not that species never change. The belief is based on an idea that either evolution started after humans were created, or that even if evolution has been running for 100 million years, there's no way that natural selection could cause the leap from animal to human. It doesn't preclude belief in evolution among animals. Third, antibiotics are all prescribed by doctors, who are plenty aware of the work of Sir Charles. And, last, antibiotic misuse is largely a tragedy of the commons. Rational patients who are very aware of the risks of antibiotic-resistant phages will still request antibiotics: they feel the benefit (even if the chance of a benefit to them is small) but the pain of antibiotic resistance is felt by other people. So, no, it's easy political point but it has more to do with enthusiasm than fact.
- breakyerself 14y ago
  I agree with the tragedy of the commons point, but I think it might be a smaller piece of the puzzle than industrial farming. Pretty much every chicken that is raised industrially is given regular doses of antibiotics to "prevent" rapid spreading of disease through large chicken stocks. Which would happen easily since the chickens are kept in such close quarters. Just about any non organic chicken you buy has antibiotic resistant bacteria living on it.
- icegreentea 14y ago
  A nitpick, a phage is a virus that targets bacteria. They pretty much have no risk to humans, and are antibiotic resistent almost by definiton.
jcampbell1 14y ago
> Assuming it is correct to say that antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolve in response to the (over-/ab-)use of antibiotics - Keep in mind that this class of antibiotic is always administered by IV, so if there is overuse or abuse, it is by doctors who likely already believe in evolution.

meaty 14y ago

If bacteria can modify the host's behaviour (this is proven), perhaps your hypothesis is a certain type of bacteria's survival vector?

slapshot 14y ago

> Conversely, might the appearance of CRE bacteria might sway the evolution debate? No. It seems like an easy political point, but there's a lot more to the story. First, there are far easier and more visible examples of evolution. In UK schools, possibly because it's a nearby example, it is taught that the color of moths in London changed dramatically during the Industrial Revolution because light-colored moths were easy snacks for birds on newly soot-covered walls. There are more colorful examples closer at hand: most of the domesticated animals in the world are examples of evolution by artificial selection: cows today share little with cows 10,000 years ago, and corn today looks nothing like 10,000 years ago. Second, thanks to #1, the belief is often that "humans (special) didn't evolve from apes (animal)" --- not that species never change. The belief is based on an idea that either evolution started after humans were created, or that even if evolution has been running for 100 million years, there's no way that natural selection could cause the leap from animal to human. It doesn't preclude belief in evolution among animals. Third, antibiotics are all prescribed by doctors, who are plenty aware of the work of Sir Charles. And, last, antibiotic misuse is largely a tragedy of the commons. Rational patients who are very aware of the risks of antibiotic-resistant phages will still request antibiotics: they feel the benefit (even if the chance of a benefit to them is small) but the pain of antibiotic resistance is felt by other people. So, no, it's easy political point but it has more to do with enthusiasm than fact.

breakyerself 14y ago
I agree with the tragedy of the commons point, but I think it might be a smaller piece of the puzzle than industrial farming. Pretty much every chicken that is raised industrially is given regular doses of antibiotics to "prevent" rapid spreading of disease through large chicken stocks. Which would happen easily since the chickens are kept in such close quarters. Just about any non organic chicken you buy has antibiotic resistant bacteria living on it.
icegreentea 14y ago
A nitpick, a phage is a virus that targets bacteria. They pretty much have no risk to humans, and are antibiotic resistent almost by definiton.

jcampbell1 14y ago

> Assuming it is correct to say that antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolve in response to the (over-/ab-)use of antibiotics - Keep in mind that this class of antibiotic is always administered by IV, so if there is overuse or abuse, it is by doctors who likely already believe in evolution.