New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Global Fund Needed to Fight Dangerous Superbugs

A global fund should be created to speed development of much-needed new antibiotics to counter the growing threat of drug-resistant superbugs, a British-government backed review said

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - A global fund should be created to speed development of much-needed new antibiotics to counter the growing threat of drug-resistant superbugs, a British-government backed review said on Thursday.

The review, headed by the leading economist and former Goldman Sachs chief Jim O'Neill, said far too little is currently invested in research that could lead to new drugs to fight drug-resistant bacterial and viral infections.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"A lot of innovative thinking is happening in infectious disease research at the moment. These bright ideas need to be developed," the report said. "But lack of funding means that while people, machines and laboratories are ready to tackle the next challenges, they are unable to do so."

The problem of infectious bugs becoming drug-resistant has been a feature of medicine since the discovery of the first antibiotic, penicillin, in 1928. But it has grown in recent years as bugs resistant to multiple drugs have developed and drugmakers have cut back investment in this field.

The World Health Organization has warned that unless something drastic is done, a post-antibiotic era, where basic healthcare becomes life-threatening due to risk of infection during routine operations, could arrive this century.

O'Neill, who was asked last year by British Prime Minister David Cameron to take a global economist's view of the issue, said in his initial report that so-called anti-microbial resistance (AMR) could kill an extra 10 million people a year and cost up to $100 trillion by 2050 if the rampant global spread of superbugs is not halted.

In this latest report, O'Neill called on international funders, both philanthropic and governmental, to allocate money to a fund "to support blue sky science and incubate ideas that are more mature".

"New drugs take 10 to 15 years to come onto market, so the time for action is now," he said.

When it comes to research funding, the report said infectious diseases and the medical interventions needed to tackle them are an underfunded "poor relation" compared to chronic illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and dementia.

It said a targeted "innovation fund" could support the kind of research needed to pave the way for new drugs, for alternatives to antibiotics and for new testing technology that is vital to ensure the right drugs are used.

The fund could also "reverse the brain drain to research areas that are currently better-paid and held in higher academic esteem, such as cancer, diabetes and dementia," it said.

 

(Editing by Liisa Tuhkanen and Raissa Kasolowsky)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe