>I suspect bacteria can, and will, evolve around almost any mitigating technique we develop.
That's a baseless suspicion. Bacteria are ultimately bound by physical laws, and while they've proven resilient, there's no reason to suggest we will be unable to develop the means to annihilate them at will. Humans are creative - bacteria just evolve fast.
I agree about the importance of the biofilm claim, but what they don't explain is how they actually achieve this. Their method of disabling that particular protein doesn't directly address the problem of the biofilms having a less-permeable extracellular matrix.
The problem of killing bacteria, as I see it, will increasingly become something akin to the demarcation problem of philosophy. Why would it not be? It is natural that the optimal situation for pathogenic bacteria to be in is one in which they are indistinguishable from necessary cells. It may take an extraordinarily long time, but until we are able to completely eradicate a pathogenic bacteria from the earth, we will remain in that arms race.
Humans are creative at killing bacteria, though it's already not difficult to "annihilate them at will". It's much harder to annihilate only the ones we don't like, only the ones that harm us, and only the ones that pose the greatest risk.
I feel a more likely future scenario is one in which we create cell-sized robotics that we can use for very narrowly targeted operations in the human body, like treating bacteria. As the bacteria mutates, so does the targeting mechanism in the software that programs the tiny robots.
But as I said, they are ultimately bound by the laws of nature. Evolution can only happen so quickly; they can only evolve their genome so much in a given period of time.
What you're suggesting is they'll evolve to look like human cells. But that doesn't make sense. They would need to evolve that way in a single generation. Something that's "almost like" a human cell would just be wiped out.
Just consider how long it took for the last common ancestor (of humans and bacteria) to evolve into a single celled organism.
I agree that we humans don't have to expect bacteria to always evolve methods to resist our medical interventions.
However, I think the most effective thing, maybe the only, we can do is actually look at the process of bacterial evolution.
That is, unless antibiotics are wildly over-used and human pathogens are concentrated in one place facing constant medical intervention, human medical intervention is going to be a very small, unimportant part of bacterial evolution.
Unfortunately, antibiotics are widely over used and pathogens are concentrated in poor administered hospitals.
If we stop these practices and we could stop these practices, then antibiotic-resistant bacteria would have little evolutionary incentive to exist.
> Unfortunately, antibiotics are widely over used and pathogens are concentrated in poor administered hospitals.
Some countries have people who sell incomplete courses of anti biotics, without a prescription.[1] Someone can buy a few days worth of pills - enough to get them over the illness, but also enough to promote anti biotic resistance.
For example, people in India die from pnumonia (largest killer of children in India) and these people need to use antibiotics. They often can't afford a complete course. And then other people misuse antibiotics for simple diarrhoea, which isn't helped with antibiotics.
> The bacterial disease burden in India is among the highest in the world1; consequently, antibiotics will play a critical role in limiting morbidity and mortality in the country. As a marker of disease burden, pneumonia causes an estimated 410,000 deaths in India each year2, and it is the number-one killer of children3. Many of these deaths occur because patients do not have access to life-saving antibiotics when and where these are needed. At the other extreme, antibiotics are used in situations where these cannot be expected to improve the patient's condition, particularly as treatment for the common cold and uncomplicated cases of diarrhoea (which are appropriately treated with oral rehydration therapy).
Yeah, but once we get good enough to annihilate them at will we will also have a similar power to improve them through tinkering.
Just like computer viruses continue to be developed by people, biological agents will be developed as well.
Some human tinkering will be for the heck of it. Some will be government level projects that get out of control. Eventually, organized crime will be in on the action.
It's certainly possible that one day we'll have desktop genome-printers. Any technology can (and often is) abused, and that would be no exception. Hopefully, there will be a Kaspserky for this era. A "Gene Kaspersky", if you will.
killing bacteria alone isnt a problem. Killing bacteria while keeping a human alive starts to complicate the problem. Killing certain bacteria while keeping a human and the rest of said humans helpful bacteria alive but not resistant to anti-bodies, is a whole different ballgame...
You'd think this was "Captain Obvious", but this is genuinely a challenge for some bacterial infections. Its even worse for fungal infections, as fungi are eukaryotic and thus share a alarming number of potential drug targets with human cells.
What I'm more concerned about is that new, creative innovations (nanobots etc) can have more sinister uses and might ultimately prove a bigger risk than our current bacteria.
That's a baseless suspicion. Bacteria are ultimately bound by physical laws, and while they've proven resilient, there's no reason to suggest we will be unable to develop the means to annihilate them at will. Humans are creative - bacteria just evolve fast.
I agree about the importance of the biofilm claim, but what they don't explain is how they actually achieve this. Their method of disabling that particular protein doesn't directly address the problem of the biofilms having a less-permeable extracellular matrix.