What is the plan of the scientist who wants to prevent antibiotic resistance from being the leading cause of death in 2050

Antibiotics are medicines used to prevent and treat bacterial infections. Antibiotic resistance (ADR) occurs when bacteria change in response to the use of these drugs. It is one of the greatest threats to global health, food security and development today, it can affect anyone, of any age, in any country. It happens naturally, but the misuse of antibiotics in humans and animals is speeding up the process.

The Organization's new Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System, called GLASS, has revealed the widespread presence of antibiotic resistance in samples of 500,000 people from 22 countries where bacterial infections were suspected. Globally, an estimated 700,000 people die each year from antimicrobial-resistant infections, according to figures from the World Health Organization. This situation will be the leading cause of death in 2050.

Stephen Baker is the scientist at the University of Cambridge who is battling this challenge. He is Director of Research in the entity's Department of Medicine, senior research member of Wellcome and Wolfson College. He has specialized in infectious diseases and has taken important action during the pandemic. Since childhood he says he had a gloomy fascination with poop. Already a graduate, he spent 12 years in Vietnam researching the bacteria that cause diarrhea. Stephen believes that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are likely to be the leading cause of death for humanity in the future. But he says that if we keep doing science, we have hope. In an exclusive telephone chat with Infobae, he explains that “antibiotics are a technology of the last century. It's time to think about what's coming.”

- What is the scenario you see?

- Antimicrobial resistance is a global challenge that is estimated to kill 10 million per year by 2050 unless we find ways to stop its progression. It will affect everyone. We are not far from the position where the conditions for which I would go to the hospital can no longer be treated with any available antibiotics. As a sample, SARS-CoV2 demonstrated that infectious diseases do not respect borders. We can easily import them into our person and pass them on to other individuals. If we produce chemical solutions to kill these organisms, they will develop resistance; this is a natural phenomenon. The magnitude of the problem and the way it is being handled is very similar to climate change. People know that this has the potential to be devastating to humanity in the coming years, but they cannot organize themselves to determine what should be done about it. The mechanisms are obsolete and need to be reviewed.

- Is it a process that can be slowed down?

-Yes. We can do this by using fewer antibiotics, using different varieties of them, and mixing the two. This will buy us some time. On the other hand, microbiology is one of the main priority areas within the public health system, and ensuring its predominance within national and international surveillance systems helps to maintain early warnings that allow rapid action.

-And then what?

-In the long term, we need to gain a greater understanding of how we can prevent resistance, develop new ways to kill microorganisms, and find better strategies to prevent disease. Investment needs to be multiplied to accelerate these research programmes. We need a 21st century solution. The reason we can be optimistic about the future is because of science. The moment we stop funding and conducting essential research, we have a problem. We still face great challenges in the form of economic and political will, but I am sure that science will find the solutions we need. The community needs to adopt changes in scientific research and publication, have approaches that are less incentivized by personal careers, by the way we disseminate information, and a propensity to investigate new ways of communicating findings outside this traditional structure. Engaging with a range of different experiences will also be key; a knowledge and innovation hub at RAM that brings together capabilities from different disciplines is likely to accelerate the research agenda rapidly. This could be structured as a virtual campus, that is, like the Alan Turing Institute, and to act as a RAM center of excellence capable of identifying and solving specific problems around this problem. This type of institution could also act as a vehicle for changing health care policy and facilitating new transnational interactions with industry, which are currently very limited.

-The University of Cambridge will launch the Cambridge International Infections Initiative (Ci3), could you detail what it is about?

- The mission is to create two-way partnerships with scientists working in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of infectious diseases is greatest. We want to use the University's expertise and infrastructure to support its research priorities. The center of gravity in terms of finance and science has massive inequalities, we have seen this with the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Wouldn't it be great if Cambridge had some role in readjusting that imbalance? What if, within 20 years, there were people in several low- and middle-income countries who had developed their research interests at the University of Cambridge and then created and produced the next generation of drugs and vaccines against bacteria and viruses? We have been fortunate to be able to bring together multidisciplinary work teams interested in this problem in a relatively short period of time, which is a sign of the interest in working collaboratively on AMR. I think RAM's research community is too established in the UK and we need to push it to have broader thinking and take on ever more ambitious projects.

- Do you think that attention to the problem is still tangential?

-The research on RAM is extensive and usually exposed in different conferences of specific disciplines. But there are very few focused on the topic, and when they do so in general the core of the discussion focuses on the molecular aspects of AMR. We must advocate for a forum that brings together people from different fields and serves to communicate the value of work at RAM to those who are responsible for setting the scientific agenda and reaching a wider audience. The UK and Ireland are in a strong position to lead global discussions on AMR to overcome barriers and spark more cross-cutting research. Again, embracing social change in conjunction with basic science can be a novel approach in which to form the nuclei of new collaborations and opportunities. Interdisciplinary research is challenging, but if scientists build relationships early they can be prepared for when opportunities arise.

KEEP READING: