Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Requests Replacement To Antibiotics

eldavojohn writes "In the grand scheme of things, antibiotics are a very temporary solution to aid humans in combating bacteria. Bacterial resistance to said antibiotics is an increasing fear and DARPA's 'Rapidly Adaptable Nanotherapeutics' solicitation reveals they're interested in a more permanent solution as modifying the genes of harmless bacteria can result in powerful bioweapons. Like siRNA, DARPA is hoping for more nanomolecules that can specifically target cells and deliver medicine to them anywhere in the body. Most amazing about this proposal is that it's aimed at small businesses and hopes to turn a process that takes decades to study a new antibiotic into a few weeks to manufacture nanomedicine to specifically target bacteria."

21 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Re:no, No, NO!!! by mr1911 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone should tell DARPA that chiropractic care can cure drug-resistant bacterial infections.
    Who knew?

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  2. "Aimed at small businesses" by Scareduck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "aimed at small businesses" part is almost certainly hooey, and is being done for political reasons.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:"Aimed at small businesses" by sconeu · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's probably not hooey.

      DARPA tends to put blue-sky stuff like this into SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research). You'd be amazed at what comes out of these grants.

      Disclaimer: In a previous job, I worked for a company that did work under SBIR.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:"Aimed at small businesses" by AdrianKemp · · Score: 4, Informative

      As mentioned above, they really do want small businesses.

      The big companies might have some extra money to toss at a problem, but they won't without good chances for return.

      In this case "small businesses" translates roughly to "those crazy enough to risk economic ruin when they fail".

      *note* I realize this post sounds a little negative, that is not the intent. I love DARPA and out of the grants they award has come some truly stunning stuff.

  3. The Future by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    DARPA + Nanites = A Better World. Only the USA could responsibly use such a technology for the betterment of all mankind.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:The Future by The+Askylist · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Richard Feynman took them seriously enough to research them when he took a short sabbatical from physics - here is a paper he co-wrote at CalTech in 1961.

      .

      If it was good enough for Feynman, it's good enough for me.

      And what is a phage but a biological nanomachine dedicated to killing bacteria, anyway?

  4. The early death of antibiotics by wjcofkc · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is massively unfortunate that antibiotics have fallen due to misuse. By all means the *should* be viable for decades to come, but that has been ruined by ignorance. To this day I know people who despite being aware of the issue from the news, doctors, and long lectures by me, discontinue their course before it's done and then hoard those antibiotics to take when they have a cold or the flu. Yet they have been informed thoroughly as to why this is bad and why antibiotics don't even try viri.

    This is not a matter of educating the public. The public has been educated yet they ignore it. I have never understood where this profound ignorance comes from. This is a major hot button for me.

    Past all that, if any organization can formulate something new and better I suppose that would be DARPA.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:The early death of antibiotics by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Informative

      I far bigger issue then singular humans mistaking antibiotics is the universal use by the farming industry on animals.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:The early death of antibiotics by tmosley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Considering it is my line of work, yes, I am an expert.

      Find me a species of bacteria that can develop an immunity to direct oxidation of its membrane. Just one. Such an organism could live in fire, and swim in bleach. Evolution isn't magic, and poison is different from fire. You can become immune to poison, but only in fiction can you become immune to fire while remaining alive. Oxidative attack is the molecular equivalent of fire, the only difference is you don't get persistent plasma off of wet oxidation.

  5. I Love You, Bob by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bob,

    You are the reason I submit any medical news to Slashdot. Your (Score: -1) batshit insanity brightens my day.

    I will take a karma hit to say this: I love you Bob! Keep up the good work fighting the front lines with *snicker* chiropractics in Africa!

    eldavojohn

    --
    My work here is dung.
  6. Re:Why still delivering medicine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two reasons, both based on the assumption that delivering medicine to them is trickier than destroying them.

    First, if you can achieve the goal of deliving medicine to target cells, then destroying them should be trivial, so you've discovered a way to do both.

    Second, it sets your sights higher. If your goal is to find a way to deliver medicine to target cells but you miss the mark and the best you can do is destroy them, you've still accomplished something great (as in a cure for cancer). However, if your goal is to figure out a way to destroy target cells and you fail, you accomplished far less.

  7. They don't have to be temporary by guises · · Score: 5, Informative

    "antibiotics are a very temporary solution to aid humans in combating bacteria"

    The problem is overuse - factory farming is unsustainable for this reason alone, but putting an end to high density meat production and doing a better job with limiting antibiotic use among humans would not only stop the development of antibiotic resistance, it would reverse the process. Evolution cuts both ways, bacteria may evolve a resistance to antibiotics but they give something up in the process. If you remove the stimulus then, given time, the process will reverse.

    Of course, ending factory farming would mean more expensive meat (i.e. big government nanny-state), but more importantly would cut into the profits of a few certain companies. So DARPA comes up with this instead.

  8. Phage therapy helps in 80% of infections by Zdzicho00 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bacteriophages are being used to cure such infections in one of polish hospitals. For example MRSA is being cured in 80% of cases.
    Therapy is safe and cheap:
    http://www.aite.wroclaw.pl/phages/phages.html

    Why you are not going to see such treatments in your country?? Phages are not patentable, so no way to earn hard cash here.

    1. Re:Phage therapy helps in 80% of infections by Stickerboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bacteriophages are being used to cure such infections in one of polish hospitals. For example MRSA is being cured in 80% of cases.
      Therapy is safe and cheap:
      http://www.aite.wroclaw.pl/phages/phages.html

      Why you are not going to see such treatments in your country?? Phages are not patentable, so no way to earn hard cash here.

      This is ridiculous. MRSA is curable in 100% of cases in the United States right now using current antibiotics and/or surgery (to remove a source of infection that drugs can't penetrate). The question is not whether or not medical science can kill the infection, the question is whether the patient is healthy enough to recover from the damage already wrought by the infection in the first place by the time they're treated. Anyone who has actually worked in an intensive care unit, instead of armchair doctoring, can attest to this.

      Example: had a nursing home patient admitted a year ago for pneumonia. Causative organism was Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Fairly resistant, treated with doripenem and tobramycin. Killed the Pseudomonas with a standard 14 day course of treatment (repeat washings and cultures: negative), but much of her left lung was already chewed up into a necrotic mush. Bronchopleural fistulas from the damage required chest tubes and chronic ventilation through a tracheostomy. Eventually taken to surgery for a pneumonectomy. Survived the surgery, but gradually worsened in her general health and never could be weaned from the ventilator until finally her family withdrew care.

      Phages may well have a good clinical benefit, and may eventually take a prominent place as another weapon in the healthcare arsenal against infection, but until I see the randomized controlled trials showing their superiority (or even noninferiority with benefits in other areas) vs standard antibiotics, I could care less. Put up or shut up....

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  9. Don't worry. Be Happy now. by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the grand scheme of things, antibiotics are a very temporary solution to aid humans in combating bacteria. Bacterial resistance to said antibiotics is an increasing fear

    Some bacteria replicate every 20 minutes. That's 72 opportunities a day for them to catch onto at least the beginnings of a method to bypass an antibiotic. And mutations are to increasing environmental survivability as brute force cracking is to opening a file with 2056-bit XYZ+ encryption. It'll work eventually, but 99.99999% of the time (literally) you and your entire family tree are long dead before anything significant happens.

    Good thing there are at least 100 quadrillion bacterial cells inside every human body, for a grand total of a fucking buttload of bacterial family trees to carry on the crack. Not to mention the uncountable number outside of humans, mutating and reproducing in thousands of different environments but all theoretically capable of suddenly mutating that one last step that allows them to survive in a human body while completely bypassing the human immune system and antibiotics almost entirely.

    Anyone who, in the last 25 years, ever thought antibiotics were a persistent defense system against bacteria was hopelessly optimistic and misinformed about microbiology.

    Overall, people just need to calm the hell down. I'm not saying we stop treating disease or cease using antibiotics or saying any other defeatist, fatalist nonsense. I'm just saying we exist at the pleasure of the bacteria, prions, and viruses that outnumber other terrestrial life by a factor of trillions. It's just one of those things that could kill us at any second but probably won't, like asteroid strikes and nuclear war. The sooner Westerners have their collective "How I learned to stop worrying and love bacteria" moment, the better. We can move on to things we can actually can full control.

  10. SURPRISE! by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just love the mission of DARPA:

    "DARPA’s mission is to prevent technological surprise for the United States and to create technological surprise for its adversaries."

    It's the closest thing we've got to a science fiction agency or MIB (the first good movie at least). Too bad I'm not smart enough to work there. (The company I was at did get its basic technology for image compression fom DARPA, now that technology and variations on it, are used in movie theaters around the world.)

    Returning to the subject: their goal seems crazy ambitious (defeat 3.5 billion years of bacterial evolution?). Still, I heard of a project at MIT where researchers had shown (in mice) a technique which would defeat just about ALL virusis (they tried it on dengue, influenza, H1N1). So who knows? Still, gotta be just a teensy bit worried because a good bio-offense (weapon) depends on a good bio-defense.

    1. Re:SURPRISE! by AdrianKemp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to have fallen victim to the classic evolution misunderstanding.

      bacteria have been evolving for billions of years, and all of that means exactly squat when we come up with a completely novel, artificial weapon against them.

      evolution is the act of random mutations surviving, so a bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago would have exactly the same chance of surviving DARPAs new weapon as today's would (not much).

  11. Re:no, No, NO!!! by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would like to correct you, picking a nit, specifically.

    Optical radiation (light) doesn't affect my DNA in the slightest. However, it affects me greatly none the less. I cant imagine how many bumps, bruises, scrapes, broken bones and bloody noses I'd have without it!

    Thank you, little photons between ~400 and ~750nm for making my life so much easier.
    Except when someone on slashdot links to goatse, then I hate you.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  12. Re:Why still delivering medicine? by tmosley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not if done properly.

    My own company has developed a small catalyst that can be covalently bound to a targeting molecule. When released into the bloodstream, the catalyst gathers around the targeted cells and catalyzes the production of superoxide, which directly oxidizes the cell membrane. If you target virulence factors, or certain vital proteins in the membrane, there is no method by which they can develop immunity. Either they evolve to no longer have virulence factors (and are thus no longer a problem), or they have to change their entire membrane structure to an as yet unseen one that resists oxidative damage while still allowing water in, which would make it not only a new species, but a new kingdom.

  13. Re:silver by tmosley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, it's terrible. It interferes with protein folding, and accumulates in the liver, even when applied topically. Doctors hate the stuff because the silver bandages they use for burn wounds turns black due to the moisture associated with the wound, which makes it so that they can't tell if there is necrosis or not.

    IANAD(octor), but my office is directly across from the department of surgery, and I have had discussions about this with them in the past. Silver is the best thing they have commercially available, but it is terrible. My company is developing better antimicrobials for them--non-leeching ones.

  14. Landscaping and watering... by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if they weren't so much 'landscapers' as 'fancy lawnmowers' and failed to adapt?

    --
    I don't read AC A human right