,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
While I'm happy today's @nytimes front page is bringing attention to antibiotic resistance, I'm not sure war is a great analogy. In war there are two (or more) parties who know they're fighting and are trying to defeat one another. That's not really what's going on here. 1/ 
Sure, we are trying to kill bacteria before they can kill us, but they aren't doing that at all. They're just surviving in whatever environment they happen to be in, and adapting to whatever evolutionary pressures happen to be on them. It's not adversarial. 2/
This means that we can potentially predict what will evolve as a result of specific actions, and plan them accordingly. We aren't outsmarting an opponent, we're learning the rules of a system that's more complex than we're used to, and that difference matters. 3/
This doesn't have to be an endless war. In addition to new drugs, we need to understand what can and cannot evolve. Discovering new antibiotics is necessary, but it's only by understanding the evolution that we'll find a sustainable solution to antibiotic resistance. 4/4
Coda: In addition to being misleading, the metaphor of war isn't innocuous. This isn't an existential threat against which we must pay any price. Some interventions against resistance might hurt more people than they help, and we cannot ignore that cost or calculus.
Totally here for the dancing pill bottles, tho
Also loving the Wes Anderson aesthetic
