There are so many news stories about antibiotic resistance these days that you may be tempted to ignore them all just to preserve your sanity. But there is a kind of hierarchy of danger when it comes to figuring out which stories are most deserving of your attention.

Anytime you hear that a particular bacterium has become resistant to a "drug of last resort," that is bad. Drugs of last resort—such as vancomycin for Staphylococcus infections—are usually the last line of safe, dependable defense for certain kinds of infections. Drug companies can try to come up with new medications to replace the outpaced meds, but that takes time and does not bring in a lot of money, so we are fast running out of drugs of last resort.

Another category of bad news to pay attention to is when serious antibiotic resistance has developed in the so-called Gram-negative bacteria. (All bacteria are divided into two groups: Gram-positive and Gram-negative based on how they react to a stain invented by a Danish bacteriologist named Hans Christian Joachim Gram.) As Maryn McKenna explains in "The Enemy Within," antibiotic resistance in the gram-negative bacteria is particularly worrisome because Gram-negative germs are more likely than Gram-positive ones to share the genes responsible for drug resistance across species. Her story is doubly alarming because it provides a detailed look at how resistance has developed in the U.S. against drugs of last resort (really bad) in Gram-negative bacteria (really, really bad).

As if that were not bad enough, clinicians are now starting to see drug resistance in whole new categories of pathogens—such as fungi.

Perhaps the worst news of all, however, is that even if antibiotics are used correctly, they may be contributing to the drug-resistance problem. Because even proper use of antibiotics creates an environment in which microbes with resistance genes are favored to survive.

The good news, however, is that changing our habits can lead to lower levels of drug resistance. Even something as simple as making sure that doctors and nurses wash their hands between treating patients in the hospital can make a difference. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization have all launched initiatives designed to help preserve the utility of antibiotics. See their respective summaries of the situation here, here and here. It will certainly take time and effort and the cooperation of a lot of people, but it is not impossible to keep antibiotics effective. As with so many issues in life, we know what to do. The question is whether or not we will follow through.

7 Comments

1. 1. scientific earthling 07:12 PM 4/2/11

   With world population at 6.9G, our very existence poisons the biosphere. We should not be doing anything to extend human life. The destruction of antibiotic efficacy should be welcome. As should be non vaccination of children for whatever reason, no matter how irrational. It is natural selection at work.
   
   Primitive societies, assisted by medical & food aid, now face fragmentation of previously homogenous societies by overpopulation. War results. We should not intervene, nor should we accept refugees from these regions. Primitive refugees results in out of control population growth in advanced regions, where education had capped population explosions. Essentially these primitive tribals seek to enforce their primitive customs on modern societies, no rational reasoning needed.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. anarchycave 10:56 PM 4/2/11

   I would like to think that human life is a bit more important than you are implying. Although issues such as over-population are perhaps not being handled in a method that is best for the world that we live in, to say that the human population should be controlled by disease is disgusting. Similarly, in your eyes, any event that produces human death, and consequentially suffering, such as natural disasters and war aren't scourges of mankind but should actually be celebrated. I think next time you should think about what you say before you decide to vomit it to other people.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. scientific earthling in reply to anarchycave 08:27 PM 4/3/11

   Anarchycave: I have thought this out for a long long time, and am convinced I am right. Why do you believe human life is important? Is it not the same as a cow's life or a fly's life? What makes human life more valuable? We are derived from the same bacteria that all life has evolved from, no life form is superior to any other, until recently all life acted as a single entity and maintained a stable biosphere that benefited all.
   
   Since humans assumed the superior role, the destruction of the biosphere began. Some attribute the biosphere with intelligence, similar to hive intelligence attributed to bees, ants and termites, but this is not true. The apparent intelligence is a result of individuals within the biosphere acting to a set of rules, and natural selection mediating and maintaining balance. The term natural selection applies a set of rules initial proposed by Darwin and others, modified over time, indicating how lifeforms interact and maintain balance.
   
   All I am asking for is nature be allowed to correct imbalances, especially amongst peoples who want the best of the modern world but don't want to give up traditional behavior.
   
   European societies developed science, to benefit from science required a new regime of ethics. These ethics were also developed by the European groups over the past 200 years. If a society wants the benefits of science it must adopt the new ethics required to live in a scientific world. Essentially they have to control their breeding and respect all life around them - sustain the biosphere.
   
   We are unwilling to change, the best solution allow natural forces to restore balance. We need disease, we need natural disasters, we need every event that restores balance between humans and the biosphere. These events don't need to be celebrated but they are a must have. Wars, as I indicated in my earlier post are homogenous societies breaking up under population and resource pressures.
   
   If you are one of those who preaches - Be fruitful and multiply - now that is true vomit.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. anarchycave 01:44 AM 4/4/11

   I am going to tone down the conversation a little as I see that you are firm in your beliefs and have actually thought deeply as to why you believe them. I suppose that if you were to look at mankind as simply a product of billions of years of evolution and that we derive from a simple, trivial cell, then yes, natural selection does fit in quite nicely with afflictions that keep human populations under control. In my eyes, however, humans cannot be classified in the same tier that one would place a cow or an insect. Even in a purely secular and biological perspective, one that completely excludes the ethics of religion and the like, humans are a breed of organisms that clearly stand out in the animal world. Such beautiful things as sentience, extraordinary levels of intelligence, and the vast array of intricate emotions that humans, as a whole, possess, are gifts that should be preserved. To say that it is absolutely necessary for a group of this complexity to suffer and die to disease and decay, especially when they possess the ability to live in harmony on Earth, is truly too sad of a concept to accept.
   
   But that isn't to say that things shouldn't change. I agree with you 100% that we need to change in order to ensure the survival of not only other organisms, but of ourselves as well. Humans definitely possess the capacity to find its niche peacefully in nature. Native Americans served as a perfect example of a society that was one with the land. (I guess it's a bit ironic that their culture was basically destroyed to the colonialism and wastefulness of other humans. A bit symbolic I suppose.)
   
   As a Catholic, my church preaches that the use condoms and birth control are sins and that human life is infinitely valuable. While I do believe in the value of human life, lack of population control leaves us with an alarming increase in humans and, consequentially, suffering for all life. Many afflictions of mankind, such as disease, lack of education, and war, are indeed causes of overpopulation. With more people packed into a small area, diseases are spread more rampantly, resources are strained, and internal conflicts arise between people under all these stresses. I suppose that the summary of my argument would be that the survival of man and the Earth could happily be satisfied with less death and less reproduction instead of its inverse.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. mikerobeman in reply to scientific earthling 05:55 PM 4/5/11

   Ugly, unpopular, but true. Mother Earth has her own highly resistant infection. Pertaining to both the article and the commentary, can we somehow encourage a pathogen to become a symbiotic parter?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. bpuharic in reply to scientific earthling 07:18 PM 4/5/11

   Have you thought of suicide? You want this for others. Set an example!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. abbyja 08:21 PM 5/5/11

   The fact that bacteria that is resistant to any form of antibiotics could be a savior to the human race is very interesting. It sure beats nuclear war which probably will happen since we can't control Over population which will be a very serious problem as you state.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this