U.S. Aims to Curb Peril of Antibiotic Resistance
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
As concerned as I am about the new or novel infectious agents, such as ebola, the largest problem will come from common pathogens that are only treatable with the strongest of antibiotics (that often have more serious side effects).
"The section on agricultural use in the council’s report 'sounds like it was written by someone from the meat industry,' said Dr. James Johnson, a professor of medicine and an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota. 'Really disappointing. Actually, depressing.'
"...The National Pork Producers Council, for its part, seemed pleased, saying in a statement that 'the White House acknowledged something that the National Pork Producers Council has been saying for years: More epidemiological research is needed to understand the key drivers of increased antibiotic resistance.'"
It seems like a mistake to continue introducing new antibiotics without addressing the factors that quickly lead to antibiotic resistance. This is especially the case because the number of different antibiotics might well be finite. (Or at least, it could be that the cost of developing new antibiotics will start to increase geometrically.) Throwing away a brand-new antibiotic is almost criminal.
I like this graphic from Nature very much; it summarizes the history of antibiotic resistance and current consumption and status:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7498_supp/full/50...