15 ms·
The interviewed expert has very good credentials and clinical experience to be talking about what he is talking about, and his warnings should be taken seriousl
by tokenadult 13y ago
The interviewed expert has very good credentials and clinical experience to be talking about what he is talking about, and his warnings should be taken seriously. But even at that, the fallacious teleological language he uses about biological evolution by natural selection suggests a way out of this problem. When he says, "Bacteria, like any living organism, want to survive," and "So anything that we do to try and kill bacteria, or anything the environment does to try and kill bacteria, bacteria will eventually discover ways or find ways around those" he is making factual statements that are plainly incorrect on their face. Bacteria don't desire anything, and they don't seek out anything or plan anything. Moreover, it is perfectly possible for lineages of bacteria to go completely extinct, and that has undoubtedly happened more times than human beings are aware.
Current antiobiotics are themselves mostly derived from "natural" chemicals emitted by microorganisms so that those microorganisms survive natural selection to go on reproducing in a world full of bacteria. Many of the early antiobiotics, for example penicillin, are derived from mycotoxins produced by fungi. Human medicine can use chemicals from fungi for protection against bacteria because human beings and all animals are more closely related to fungi than either fungi or animals are related to bacteria,[1] so fungi have a biochemical similarity to animals that makes it likely (although not certain) that a mycotoxin that is lethal to bacteria will be relatively harmless to human beings.
And this is the way forward to developing new antibiotics. As we reach a deeper biochemical understanding of the basis of all life, we will eventually understand the differences, which are biochemical differences at bottom, between human beings and bacteria, between human beings and protists, between human beings and fungi (yes, there are some systematic differences between animals and fungi) and between human beings and all other harmful microorganisms. Only human beings have science labs and clinical research studies to come up with new defenses against the thoughtless, largely immobile threats from other living things. We can form hypotheses, test those hypotheses rigorously, and perhaps make some lineages of harmful microorganisms as extinct in the wild as the smallpox virus and rinderpest virus now are. The intelligence that the hominid lineage has evolved gives human beings advantages that bacteria will never possess.
[1] http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/DeepGreen/NYTimes.html http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/DeepGreen/NYTimes.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/16/us/animals-and-fungi-evolutionary-tie.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/16/us/animals-and-fungi-evolu...
- tedunangst 13y agoClearly, everyone needs to stop washing their hands, or bacteria will develop soap immunity. And then what will we do?
- ghaff 13y agoYou've been voted down but there is actually a school of thought that excess use of antibacterials and generally going "overboard" (whatever that means exactly) with preventing children from being exposed to natural flora can potentially result in weakened immune systems. There's a lot of pseudo-science in these claims but that doesn't mean there's absolutely no truth to them. It would probably be hard to do a study though and it's not clear who would fund such a thing.
- architgupta 13y agoYou could probably compare kids in the developing world versus kids in the developed world.
- dsizzle 13y agoIgnoring the snark (of the parent comment), I've often wondered why it was bad to use anti-bacterial soap (and antibiotics in general), but not regular soap, since both leave some amount of bacteria behind, which presumably have genetics making them more resistant to the pressure. I think part of the answer is that its just not possible to evolve resistance to any amount of soap and hand washing, unlike resistance to the targeted mechanisms of an antibacterial compound.
- vidarh 13y agoIt obviously is possible to evolve resistance to soap and hand washing: It doesn't kill us. But the gap from a bacteria to something that can withstand the physical barrage of a thorough wash is huge in comparison to the relatively tiny changes to overcome some antibiotics. E.g. an antibiotic might disrupt a single process of the bacteria that is beneficial (for them) but that have a multitude of similar alternatives that are different enough for the antibiotic to fail. Compare that to even just being able to strongly enough attach to the skin to not be flushed away by sheer force from a wash. There are many reasons that tends to be given for being careful about stronger measures: 1) it is not necessary. It's a matter of being cautious - by using the least effective means that is effective enough, we exert the minimum pressure necessary, leaving us with a larger arsenal of (to us) gentle alternatives to step up to. 2) the stronger methods, the more we kill off beneficial or neutral bacteria too, and by doing so we may make conditions better for bacteria that are nasty for us if we happen to pick them up. 3) we reduce our immune systems exposure to relatively harmless amounts of bacteria and some believe this may be sufficient to actually reduce our overall immune defence. As DanBC pointed out in response to one of my other comments, there's also the issue of physical damage. While we can bring the heavy artillery and effectively kill anything that lives on our skin, we can as collateral damage cause damage to our skin that creates additional places to hide - effectively a worse variation of washing away good/neutral baceteria - not only may we be removing the competition, but we may be opening cracks and folds that'll be excellent hiding places.