Sorry Dave,
I'm afraid I can't let you take that. Would you like to hear a song or have some synthetic cannabis instead?
Although new strains of antibiotics are increasingly difficult to develop, scientists have done just that, with the help of a neural network. The drug – named halicin as a hat tip to HAL 9000, the fictional AI bot in Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey – was singled out by the trained software as a likely antibiotic candidate …
Stupid HAL, he doesn’t understand money.
1. Use AI (well, an automated system anyway) to develop all possible antibiotic permutations that might be useful.
2. Patent them.
3. Wait for the bugs to evolve -> profit.
Even better:
1. Use AI to synthesize all antibiotics it possibly can.
2. Patent them.
2. Use AI to engineer bugs to match your patent portfolio.
4. Release the bugs -> all the profit you can imagine, and then some more.
Who’s in? Minimum investment 100 M€ / £83.7M
Oh no, there goes my golden future :/ Need to brainstrom more evil genius ideas to rule the world.
(BTW, it’s no joke that human activity creates super-bugs: too many anti-bacterial products around us. No conspiracy theories needed. Antibacterial tooth paste is one of the worst ideas ever.)
Outside of the West it is common public opinion that the virus is part Trump's plan to destabilise China's economy. One broadcaster mentioned the more than 150 bio-warfare research labs that exist in the States, true or not it's easy to see where this kind of thinking comes from.
1. Use AI (well, an automated system anyway) to develop all possible antibiotic permutations that might be useful.2. Patent them.
3. Wait for the bugs to evolve -> profit.
Something similar used to happen (and possibly still does) in many chemical companies. They'd employ researchers to mix up chemicals in some informed-but-mostly-not-random fashion and see if the resultant goop could be of any possible use for anything. I was told this by a chemistry teacher who spent the first two years after getting his degree testing goop for shampoo-like properties. If anything interesting turned up the company would then patent the goop and wait for a competitor to bring a similar product to market before setting the lawyers on them.
Two years of shampoo-seeking was enough to convince my teacher that a move into education would be a more interesting career, albeit one which would primarily involve stopping teenage boys from poisoning each other or blowing up the lab.
There are easily recognisable elements from known antimicrobial principles. I can see three, but mechanistically completely different one. Sulfa, quinoline - and guanidino antiseptics.
The with authors did on mechanism looks sound.
The molecules seem to be stuffed with potentially reactive points, so the road towards clinical acceptance may be a thorny one. Treating a patient may become a race between killing bacteria and harming the patient. If it cures the patient with a single or very few doses, it may become a success. If long treatments are required, I am less optimistic.
This isn't new - various similar methods have been used before over ~~ last 20 years. I wish them well but in my experience the molecule found is horrible. If it came out has a hit in a screen I'd discard it without looking back - in fact it would probably hit ~ 10-20% of all screens. Some of the others in the databases look far worst BTW.
2nd point is a hit - even if genuine - is not a drug. Safety, pharmacokinetics, distribution, and a whole lot of other requirements need to be met.
Still we'll see. We certainly need new 'antibiotics'
Most new drugs never reach the market because of toxicity/side effects/plain don't work.
Those that do typically take a decade to get through animal testing and then clinical trials before approval.
Pretty soon after that stupidity and greed will kick in. Meat producers will use it to speed up weight gain in animals, and dispensers in poor regions will sell one (1) pill to poor customers because they can't afford the entire course. Both are excellent ways of rapidly building antibiotic resistance....
It's true that antibiotics are used to prop up poor husbandry, but it's also been known for a long time that feeding low levels of antibiotics to animals promotes growth. It's finally being banned but China and the US have been openly doing this for decades.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/countries-still-using-antibiotics-fatten-animals-despite-ban/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331113-700-antibiotic-resistance-is-spreads-from-farms-to-people-in-china/
"Doctors and farmers doling out doses of antibiotics recklessly"
This is particularly true.
Farmers: Massive prophylactic use of antibiotics, giving them to all their hard not just any sick ones, just so they can cram more animals into a tighter space in the name of the Prophet Profit. AFAIK this is banned in EU, but pretty rampant in US. And goodness knows what happens in China, it's definitely not surprising that it's an epicenter for new viral strains and epidemics, given that many of these can be triggered by close contact with sick animals in terrible conditions.
Doctors: This is a typical conversation I've had with multiple times with different doctors when one of my children had a fever:
Doc: So I'm prescribing Ibuprofen to bring fever down and antibiotic
Me: Are you sure they need antibiotic?
Doc: Well, the fever is either a bacterial or viral infection, can't be sure so better take them
Me: ?!?WTF?!? no thanks
I always ended up agreeing with Doc that we would come back for antibiotics if the fever didn't disappear after 3 days. Never had to go back. Viral or bacterial doesn't matter, typically a healthy child's immune system will deal with it in a few days. Oh, and small tip, antibiotics generally take out good gut bacteria along with the nasties so whenever you have to take antibiotics, always ask doc to provide/prescribe some probiotics to repopulate after