21–30 of 98 posts
> The researchers then checked snot from hospitalized patients. Of 187 samples, all but one were colonized by either S. aureus or S. lugdunensis, but not both. The researchers think where one species grows, the other can’t. How does S. aureus prevent S. lugdunesis from invading?
This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 working drugs that would kill essentially any bacteria. And then we had 4. We discovered new ones, at one point I believe up to 7. But resistance made it go down pretty much by one per decade, but each next one ended faster. And then it hit zero, in 2012 I beli…
AFAIK bacteria aren't developing a way to get resistant faster; the problem is antibiotics over-use (and misuse). Also, if an antibiotic for which resistance was developed doesn't get used for a long enough time, the bacteria lose the resistance. The bottom line is that we need to use newly developed antibiotics more carefully, continue researching new ones, and no Spanish flu like incident will happen (even without…
That would suggest that we need a few more antibiotics to cycle though, by the time we get back to the older ones they will be efficient again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure about that? I would think that the patent wouldn't apply to non-commercial investigations or research. That is you would be free to synthesize or extract this chemical in a laboratory environment. However, if you wished to manufacture the drug for commercial purposes then you would need to license the patent.
Well, potential researchers will also have to weigh the possibility that they spend all of the time and effort to research other possibilities for it only to find out that after all of the licensing fees, etc they won't even be able to break even on the fruits of their research. It carries too high of a risk for financially-minded people (looking for a return on investment) to throw money at it.
As opposed to the risk of searching for some completely new thing that may not exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least if they'd kept their findings secret, researchers could independently be researching the same thing. Now independent researchers won't want to touch lugdunin because they'll need to license the patent, however they won't know whether licensing the patent is worthwhile until they do their research. This will prevent further research, not encourage it.
Are you sure about that? I would think that the patent wouldn't apply to non-commercial investigations or research. That is you would be free to synthesize or extract this chemical in a laboratory environment. However, if you wished to manufacture the drug for commercial purposes then you would need to license the patent.
The exception, at least in US law, is super-super slim
First there was stool transplants. Now, we can have snot transplants.
Awesome research. But... > The researchers then checked snot from hospitalized patients. Of 187 samples, all but one were colonized by either S. aureus or S. lugdunensis > S. lugdunensis, was killing S. aureus. Its weapon of choice? A small compound dubbed lugdunin > The German researchers who performed the study have filed a patent for lugdunin Are we really allowing people to patent naturally occurring biological c…
You have to choose a system. If we don't want naturally-occurring compounds patented, but we want them researched for potential drug use, we need more public funding. Otherwise, we have to offer researchers and drug manufacturers an incentive to take risks with exploring these compounds. Barring lugdunin from being patented while providing no public funding would incentivise this group to withhold publication until t…
I'll take researchers for $1,000, Alex.
Not a knock to drug manufacturers who are simply acting as they should under the current profit-driven system, but I think we'd be far better off if more of this existential-level stuff (like health) were government functions, or at least government sponsored and not-for-profit.
So, let's support a federation of researchers who have direct incentive for discovery. Then, let's make those discoveries public domain.
Awesome research. But... > The researchers then checked snot from hospitalized patients. Of 187 samples, all but one were colonized by either S. aureus or S. lugdunensis > S. lugdunensis, was killing S. aureus. Its weapon of choice? A small compound dubbed lugdunin > The German researchers who performed the study have filed a patent for lugdunin Are we really allowing people to patent naturally occurring biological c…
You have to choose a system. If we don't want naturally-occurring compounds patented, but we want them researched for potential drug use, we need more public funding. Otherwise, we have to offer researchers and drug manufacturers an incentive to take risks with exploring these compounds. Barring lugdunin from being patented while providing no public funding would incentivise this group to withhold publication until t…
Cool I choose heaps of public funding and patents dead forever!
So a similar study in a few years might lead to a new antibiotic molecule targetting the mutated S. aureus.
Is there hope for this or is it nonsense?