Superbug resistance engineered by society
Crusaders for public health have long touted, “everything in moderation.” We’re told to limit our fats, sugars and amount of time we spend inert on the couch watching Netflix. But in our push for improved fitness and reduced mortality, we’ve overlooked an essential cause for self-restraint, and the consequences could be lethal. The excessive use of antibiotics has committed the human race to a war on all fronts, with our microscopic adversaries wielding an eons-old tactic that we’ve yet to best: evolution. As superbugs resistant to medicine proliferate globally, it is of immediate importance that companies and governments work to curb their spread by loosening our reliance on unnecessary antibiotics.
Celebrated as one of the greatest medical advancements of the 20th century, antibiotics work by killing or inhibiting the growth of bacteria responsible for life-threatening infections. Prior to World War II, standard practice for the treatment of skin infections was amputation of the affected areas. Even an injury as superficial as a small scrape — today merely acknowledged with some ointment and a Band-Aid — could mean death if the wound became a site for infection. So it really is no wonder that mid-century commentators heralded antibiotics as “wonder drugs.”
Today, we take for granted the availability of antibiotics, offered over the counter in gel, spray and wipe form. We seek out prescriptions from our physicians for every cold and flu, viruses that cannot be treated by antibiotics, despite the fact that half of all antibiotic prescriptions are written for such ailments. When traveling to foreign countries we take antibiotics without proper cause. In developing nations like India, the flooding of immune systems with antimicrobial serums starts on day one, with newborns receiving injections to safeguard them against pathogens.
The problem goes beyond just pharmacies and doctors’ offices. In fact, nearly 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States go toward commercial farm animals. Intended to promote growth and prevent sickness in highly crowded facilities, these unsustainable practices have given a boost to superbug advancement. The FDA has introduced guidelines encouraging the end of indiscriminate antibiotic use by farmers. But because these regulations are voluntary, their adoption has been scant.
So, what’s the big deal?
Over many decades of exposure to the same antibiotics, microbes have developed a resistance. The ubiquity of bacteria — hundreds of trillions living in a single human body — yields a high probability of random genetic mutation. Most of the time, a mutation will result in a bacterium’s death. Occasionally though, a mutation will give a cell some competitive advantage. In the race against medicine, this advantage can take the form of cell walls toughened against powerful drugs and the capacity to transfer drug-resistant genes to other, non-resistant microbes. While the antibiotic goes to work killing off susceptible organisms, it is also clearing the way for the emergence of these resistant superbugs.
Bacteria are ultimately compelled by their will to live. Each new generation of a strain, emerging every couple of hours or so, grows stronger against modern antibiotics. In some cases, even those most powerful drugs have proved futile. In a 2013 report, the Centers for Disease Control found that superbugs sicken at least two million Americans annually, 23,000 cases which result in death. In a global survey conducted last year, the World Health Organization reached similar conclusions.
Engineering our way out of the problem seems a risky venture. It has been decades since a new class of antibiotics was introduced. Much of this has to do with the lack of economic incentive for pharmaceutical companies. Research invested in long-term drugs for the treatment of chronic conditions such as cancer is a far more lucrative endeavor than the generation of new antibiotics intended for brief use.
There is some hope. A report published last month in Nature details the promising findings of several researchers in Massachusetts. Using a compound called teixobactin, which is secreted by soil-dwelling bacteria, the scientists have found promising treatment against the microbes responsible for many infections. The best part? Because the teixobactin attaches to parts of the cell wall that can’t mutate, the bacteria under assault, might be unable to evolve a resistance. Still, this science is in its most preliminary phase.
Behavioral modifications — that is, using fewer antibiotics across all sectors — seem to be the most appropriate step in preventing superbug emergence. With the next class of viable antibiotics still years shy of entering healthcare systems, reduction will prove more successful than a frantic arms race.
Austin Reagan is a junior majoring in environmental studies and political science. His column, “The Scientific Method,” runs Mondays.