Now on ScienceBlogs: Antibiotic Resistance and the House and Senate Healthcare Bills

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

About

Welcome to The ScienceBlogs Book Club, Seed's virtual venue for hosting discussions on stimulating new titles in science, featuring reviews from across the ScienceBlogs network.

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Featured

In October, 2008:

falseprophets_small.png

Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure, by Paul Offit

Buy a copy at Amazon.

 

In June, 2008:

microcosm.jpg

Microcosm: E. Coli and the New Science of Life, by Carl Zimmer

Buy a copy at Amazon.

« The Risk of Nature, The Nature of Risk | Main | That's a Wrap! »

Dear Prudence

Posted on: June 13, 2008 12:16 PM, by Jessica Snyder Sachs

jessica_sachs.jpgI think Carl gets right to the heart of the issue both in this online conversation and in his book. "Are we really just getting started thinking about this stuff?" he asks.

In some cases, it seems that regulators are forcing researchers to go to near-impossible lengths to ensure safety despite no conceivable risk. (Hillman's cavity-fighting tooth bug?) In other cases, researchers appear to be rushing ahead with no one stopping them.

Carl highlights what I consider a prime example of the latter issue in "Darwin at the Drugstore" (subsection "Skin of the Frog"). He describes how Michael Zasloff, the researcher who first began developing antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) as a new class of anti-infectives felt sure that bacteria could never develop resistance to them.

It took a clever evolutionary biologist, McGill's Graham Bell, just one summer to prove Zasloff wrong.

But that hasn't stopped other researchers from rushing forward with new AMP "antibiotics," some of which have now entered clinical trials.

Why does that make some, including myself, so nervous?

Antimicrobial peptides are the human immune system's front line of defense. As part of a concerted immune response, they don't prompt the evolution of resistance in bacteria. But when used in isolation (like an antibiotic), we now know they can and do breed resistance.

So are we risking the rise of genes that will make bacteria resistant to the body's own AMPs? We've seen how fast antibiotic-resistance genes proliferated through the bacterial world over the last 60 years. There's no turning back the clock on that one. But this ups the ante!

So back to Carl's wise question: "Are we really just getting started thinking about this stuff?"

Share on: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/74023

Comments

1

Yes I agree that it is strange that these topics are difficult to vitalize in our mind environments
Though rember that a few oldtimers sugested that something was wrong with our thinking, like a bug or a virus that makes us allways miss the important points to the benefit to lesser important matters like wars, sports and shopping etc. Thanks for your keeping on going on anyhow. I feed a litle myself to related swedish blogging
best regards
kai

Posted by: Kai Vogt Westling | August 24, 2008 11:01 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM