The increase of antibiotic resistance is a matter of legitimate public concern. But this article abuses the same "think of the children" meme that worldly people everywhere despise in politics and journalism of every sort.
Children are more susceptible to infection than healthy adults, but so are the elderly and people with compromised immune systems. We don't need to pull at the heartstrings to justify a conservative approach to the use of antibiotics.
I wish we didn't need to, but we've been talking about this issue for a decade or so already, and so far not much has been done. And as sad as it is, "think of the children" may be despised on HN, but it works perfectly well on GenPop.
To be clear, the issue of antibiotic resistance is not such a problem. Generally, resistant bacteria are less fit than their nonresistant counterparts in the absence of the antibiotic, so we should expect that after a period of disuse antibiotics would once again become useful.
"Period of disuse" may mean hundreds of years when people die of simple cuts and there's no point of even having a hospital. Biology has a lot of intertia.
This is a quote from a book by Nick Lane that I think would be relevant here.
"studies show that bacteria can lose superfluous genes in a matter of hours or days. Such fast gene loss means that bacterial species tend to retain the smallest number of genes compatible with viability at any one moment."
The main reason he claims is that for bacteria, the speed of DNA replication is generally the limiting factor in speed of cell division and proliferation of said bacteria, so selection pressures lead to more favorable outcomes for the bacteria that maintain the smallest functional genome.
The book is Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life if you or anyone else is interested. Fascinating read I would recommend it.
Possibly, but you must bear in mind how rapidly bacteria reproduce and evolve. I'm not well enough informed to say exactly how long it would take, but I very much doubt it would be hundreds of years. (And people wouldn't necessarily die of simple cuts regardless -- we still have our immune systems and other means of sterilizing wounds.)
Yes, but this begs the question of why this particular article merits our attention. Biologists have been complaining for years, maybe decades, about the overuse of antibiotics. Any of thousands of publications on the subject could have been selected, yet this one carries with it an especially attention-grabbing headline. My objection is not with calling attention to the issue, only the way in which the writer went about it. Antibiotic resistance is a problem for the species as a whole, not just innocent children who need our protection.
I think you'll enjoy reading [0]. It's long, but very much worth the time. It tries to answer exactly the question you asked - why this particular article, instead of any of thousands of others that prove their points better and without controversy.
I did enjoy it. It was worthwhile, and not so long (for anyone else reading this).
I'm aware of the role of propaganda in society. Just yesterday I recommended to you and others Edward Bernays' Propaganda and a good post by Paul Graham on the same subject.
As I wrote then, I haven't formed a strong belief on Bernays' normative assertions on the value of propaganda to society. Either way, the fact that Bernays' wrote what he did is evidence that he didn't see anything wrong with pointing out propaganda when it is presented. My 'objection' would perhaps have been better characterized as identifying this article as a work intended to direct public opinion, rather than provide factual information.
Children are more susceptible to infection than healthy adults, but so are the elderly and people with compromised immune systems. We don't need to pull at the heartstrings to justify a conservative approach to the use of antibiotics.