Slashdot Mirror
Global Biological Experiment Generates Exciting New Results
New submitter hoboroadie writes "Scientific American Magazine says antibiotic-resistance genes have moved from the incubators of our hospitals and factory farms, and are spreading through diverse species in the wild. Resistance genes have been detected in crows, gulls, houseflies, moths, foxes, frogs, sharks and whales, as well as in sand and coastal water samples from California and Washington. This stuff is getting more and more like a Hollywood script everyday, n'est ce pas?"
We had a half a percent higher profit margin on cattle for a couple decades. That's totally worth having permanent incurable deadly diseases. Tragedy of the commons sucks balls, and time and again, it turns out that the "invisible hand" won't develop any solution to it.
I, for one, welcome our new genetically modified overlords!
If you use something that kills of the weak members of a given entity over a period of time the result will be the surviving members will become strong. Darwinism is brutal and efficient like that whether you want it to be or not. In this case by over using antibiotics everywhere from handsoap to feed for cows we have resulted in the saturation of the environment. The result was inevitable and it really is a case of we did this to ourselves.
If memory serves Norway prohibits their use in all settings but hospitals and has healthier citizens as a result. It really does boil down to the classic George Carlin germs are good comedy bit. We need regular exposure to germs to become stronger and build healthier immune systems. The only thing were building is stronger and healthier bugs and weaker humans - there's something wrong with that.
Politicians and lobbyists who continue to let last line of defence antibiotics be legal in farming should all be rounded up and imprisoned.
We live in interesting times, and it seems they are likely to get more interesting as time goes by. What was the Chinese curse again?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Who knew that eating cells, breaking them down into their component parts and integrating that into your cells had any chance of DNA transference?
genes that make the crows resistant to antibiotics
bacteria in the crows were resistant to several other antibiotics
I presume that the bacteria in the crows are resistant, not the crows themselves.
If so, then we're in for a Hell of a time finding a cure when we're hit with a devastating bacteriological pandemic.
However, if the crows were resistant (I doubt that's what the article means) then that would be a cool idea, because it would mean that bacteria could act as a DNA conduit between species.
In addition to crows, resistance genes have been detected in gulls, houseflies, moths, foxes, frogs, sharks and whales...
I despair of the future of science writing, when even Scientific American allows an article that completely fails to distinguish between the genes of crows or other animals and the genes of their intestinal flora.
How is this exciting? It's worrying.
But is there any indication that these resistance genes weren't already in those populations beforehand? Is there actually some reason to think that the resistance genes have crossed from bacteria to all those higher-order lifeforms listed? What does it even mean for a crow to be antibiotic resistant?
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
And you thought those training exercises were jokes...
Antibiotics is the only thing that separates us from 1600s. We seriously should not fuck that up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/
Scariest thing I've watched in a long time.
Geed. It's gonna kill us all.
"Global Biological Experiment Generates Exciting New Results" So are we getting our headlines from SimCity now?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Relax. I'm pretty sure nobody here is a crow, gull, housefly, moth, fox, frog, shark or whale.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I must be misunderstanding, but this news isn't exciting. We don't want bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics anywhere in any species. Exciting from a research discovery perspective is fine, but can someone explain what I'm missing from a "this is good news" perspective?
Wrong agriculture business. This is antibiotic resistance. Monsanto is arguably causing herbicide and pesticide resistance, although such claims are stupid: they made the herbicides and pesticides, and they worked. It wasn't going to last forever if it was used widely, and if it wasn't used widely to make cheap foodstock, what's the bloody point?
They even took steps to limit that much. The terminator seed technology was partly intended to prevent contamination: if the plants can't breed, they're less likely to mix with wild species and contaminate them. Obviously they had a lot of financial interest in it, both because if resistance gets into the pest populations, that's going to make their product worthless. And in response to the controversy and accusations that it would screw over farmers, Monsanto never actually put terminator seeds on the market.
Anyway, pointing fingers is only so helpful, even at the agricultural entities that ARE driving antibiotic resistance. At this point, we know the looming disaster. It's not rocket science or even climate science either. This is high school biology. Businesses can be expected to faithfully act without any regard other than immediate profit. Ignorant patients will always find greedy doctors willing to give them antibiotics they don't need for diseases that aren't bacterial. Fixing the problem won't happen voulontarily. We need legislation to prevent milk from cows treated with antibiotics from being sold in supermarkets cheaper than untreated milk. Same with other livestock. It's an externalized cost: there's an advantage to it that needs to be taken away. We also need to strip the medical licenses of doctors who give out antibiotics for the cold. Either they're shockingly ignorant of the last 20 years of research and aren't fit to be doctors, or they're intentionally contributing to a real health hazard and should face criminal charges.
The title of this post was extremely sensational and MISLEADING. It's a cute trick to get clicks but it won't work forever. If this sort of thing becomes the norm, I'm sure your readership will go down.
Wow, how are we going to protect ourselves against sand monsters now?
The article makes it sound as if the crows are themselves acquiring genetic modifications giving them resistance to antibiotic compounds. However, it is the bacteria inhabiting the crows intestine that have acquired the antibiotic resistance genes, not the crows themselves. The article also suggests that antibiotics dispensed in hospitals are somehow a major factor when, in fact, the quantity of antibiotics dispensed in factory farms surpasses the quantity dispensed for human medical needs by orders of magnitude. If antibiotic resistance leads to increased human mortality, blame the steak on your plate, not the poor fellow down the street having surgery at the hospital.
Ignorant patients will always find greedy doctors willing to give them antibiotics they don't need for diseases that aren't bacterial.
Why aren't doctors allowed to give people sugar pills instead of antibiotics? Of if they are allowed, why aren't they actively doing it instead of sending people home empty handed (which leaves them unhappy so they go looking for a 'better' doctor)?
There should be organization at a national level to produce nicely packaged placebos in important looking boxes. They could even change the name every few months so people don't figure it out.
If there's anything that's in world/national interest, this is it.
No sig today...
Sharks are antibiotic resistant?
(I always take some penicillin before I go swimming...)
Really, it's the micro-organisms that live in those hosts that have the resistance genes...
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
Lord Vader,
The scientist/economist of the Capitalist Death Star have discovered that profit/revenue, and not medichlorians, generate the commodity known as "The Force". You will be re-assigned as a CDS janitor, as we feel that is where your body suit assets will provide the best ROI; we are raising interest rates and no loner require your services as "Lord".
Thanks,
CDS Management Team
n'est ce pas?
shut the fuck up
Just as bacteria and viruses, exposed to high levels of antibiotics, have evolved antibiotic resistance and immunity, so will humans evolve resistance or immunity to the new versions of bacteria and viruses. Of course, the way evolution works, the few humans with superior resistance or immunity to the new superbugs will be the fittest survivors, and the rest of us will become extinct. Evolution has worked that way for 3 and a half billion years, no reason for it to stop now :).
Resistance genes have been detected in crows, gulls, houseflies, moths, foxes, frogs, sharks and whales, as well as in sand and coastal water samples from California and Washington.
How are there genes in sand? WTF is this summary trying(and failing) to say?
For those of you not aware, Scientific American is a poltical rag. When the political parties that correspond to their leadership zig, Scientific American zigs. When they zag, Sci-Am zags. I didn't realize it myself, until they did a whole issue on "where do all the guns come from?" That was the talk of the day in the standard political journalism circles, but .. . I asked my father, a PhD physicist, how that related to science.
He said it didn't, but that Sci-Am was a political rag, not a science magazine.
So it's kindof like talking about the AMA as being about medicine... it isn't. It's about politics, and incidentally in the context of science, when it suits their purposes.
For science articles, try Science News.
Now... all that said... I thought it was really cool, when someone in my Dad's physics department got an article about his project in the Scientific American. It wasn't one of the faculty... it was the maintenance man, who also would set up and tear down labs. It was Jim Lehman, and the article was about his Lehman seismometer, which was really an amazing invention for its day; and the article was in a column about the amature scientist.
So I still *like* Sci Am... I just don't consider it to be primarily about science. Relax, the articles only need to be up to political standards, depending on the meaning of what "need" needs to be, or "is" is.
Is "exciting" really the proper word for this headline? How about "terrifying" or "catastrophic".
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
Because if a doctor did that and by some remote chance, the patient did have a bacterial infection and died, the doctor would be in a great deal of trouble.
Excuses of the 20th century:
Think of the children!
Terrorism!
Excuses of the 21st:
Feeding billions!
Terrorism!
At least some things are constant... pearl-clutching and monocle-poppingly constant.
We need to pass a law stating that it was great evolution got us this far but now it needs to stop.
If antibiotic resistance is spreading amongst 'wild' pathogens, perhaps Roundup-resistance will start spreading amongst weeds.
Who'da thunk?
Let's pass a law against evolution. Monsanto will surely be onboard with that.
Wrong company. It is more like Amgen is making things worse. If you want to give yourself a good scare watching the latest Frontline episode on superbugs is a great way to do it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-technology/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/dr-brad-spellberg-antibiotic-resistance-is-everyones-fault/
for a birth announcement.
"This stuff is getting more and more like a Hollywood script everyday, n'est ce pas?"
Pardon my French, but fuck the submitter and his faux-intellectualism. This is an English-language site, isn't it so? So why use French, you nutball? Chinga tu madre, usted es mierde. Don't speak Spanish? Well, I just cursed you out. I don't speak fucking French. If you want to impress me, use an ENGLISH word I haven't heard or seen.
You are not erudite.
Why aren't doctors allowed to give people sugar pills instead of antibiotics? Of if they are allowed, why aren't they actively doing it...
Some do. My dad used to do this with obstreperous patients who would not take no for an answer when antibiotics and their ineffectiveness on viruses were explained to them. He was honest though. He did not call them antibiotics but rather he would prescribe a regular dose multi-vitamin with a fancy sounding name and tell them that this was the best treatment for them given their condition (usually just a bad cold).
The patients were not exactly happy with not getting an antibiotic but at the same time at least felt they were getting something to treat their condition. On the flip side my dada felt that he has not lied to the patient and, given that they had a virus, he was still giving them the best treatment option both for themselves and humanity at large. However my dad was a doctor years ago (and is now beyond the reach of any human courts!) and in this increasingly litigious world I can well imagine that doctors think twice about doing this. Even if it is in everyone's best interests they don't want to be dragged into some long lasting, expensive court battle just to prove it which is likely what would happen if a patient ever found out they had been prescribed simple vitamins.
sending people home empty handed (which leaves them unhappy so they go looking for a 'better' doctor)?
For that part, the word 'better doctor' is very subjective to the patient. Many patients look for 'magic pills' that immediately relieve their symptoms. How many people do you know that take pain relief pills whenever they have a headache rather than attempt to relax and rest first? Of course, there could be serious cases involved, but I doubt that is the majority. Therefore 'unhappy' does not imply 'find a better doctor' because the 'better' could become 'worse' under circumstances (including short or long term effect). I would suggest "which leaves them unhappy so they go looking for a doctor who pleases them better" instead (which means the doctor may or may not really help the patients).
Why aren't doctors allowed to give people sugar pills instead of antibiotics?
In many Asian countries, that is what they do. Except instead of sugar, they use herbs. They get all the benefit of the placebo effect, but none of the drawbacks of antibiotic resistance.
Usually "exciting" is used as a positive recommendation. That's not the case here.
Something like this is BAD. REALLY bad.
There are whole classes of pathogens that are kept under control via antibiotic therapy now.
If they suddenly develop resistance, we're in DEEP shit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
FTA:
“We’ve documented human-derived drug resistance where it shouldn’t be – in wildlife and the environment. But we know very little about how this may impact public health. There just isn’t that smoking gun,” said Ellis, a research scientist at Tufts University’s veterinary school.
Wrong agriculture business. This is antibiotic resistance.
Not completely wrong. Monsanto does make some antibiotics for agricultural use. For instance, they make LS-50, a mixture of lincomycin and spectinomycin, which is used on chickens. LS-50 is also occasionally used, illegally, by dairy farmers.
Humans MAY develop resistance or immunity.
MAYBE. It's never a guarantee.
And if the agent is particularly virulent, well, that's great. We just kill off a majority of the population so a small number of people who won the genetic lottery can spend the rest of their lives walking the earth trying to find someone to breed with.
There are already classes of pathogen out there that are resistant. MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), and VRE (Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus).
And yes, to a healthy person, these don't pose a massive threat. They're relatively mild. However, to someone who's immunocompromised (and I don't just mean HIV, I mean anyone whose immune system is suppressed, via illness, medication, etc), these can represent a massive overload to a person's system.
So, without being particularly virulent (as killing your host is bad ecology), these can still represent a massive health issue. As systemic overload results in two classes of people. The healthy and the dead.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If a Hollywood movie showed us a cataclysmic event in which millions of people died, I would call that "exciting".
If the same events occurred in real life, I'm not sure that's the word I would use.
NPR had an interesting segment about how farm vets push antibiotics.
The livestock industry uses them, IIRC, to aid in the fattening of the cows, pigs, etc; Apparently some farmers have discovered other ways to raise healthy and "fat" livestock WITHOUT the use of AntiBiotics, however it is still an uphill battle convincing many farmers to leave that tried and true, ancient tradition of pumping cows full of AntiBiotics.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
In the case of doctors, I doubt it's because of greed. I live in Canada, and the doctor gets paid a fixed rate for my visit by the provincial government, whether he prescribes an antibiotic or not. And yet, I've still had doctors do so for what were either clearly viral colds/flu, or at least without even bothering to do a throat swab. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, older doctors seem more likely to prescribe antibiotics, suggesting it may be the increasing emphasis on antibiotic resistance over the past decade or two that is an issue--one of education and habit, rather than greed.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
I'd like to imagine this is from the farms, but the specific antibiotic they mentioned in TFA was said to be about the last hope of the patients who have a nosocomial infection.
Fifteen of the crows sampled, about 2.5 percent, harbored genes for resistance to vancomycin, a drug of last resort for hard-to-treat hospital-acquired infections. Crows with the resistance genes were found in all of the states except California.
Why do we let corporate pharmers inoculate our environment with this shit? We get our water from the Jenny (T.I.D.) and Neil Creek watersheds, which are fairly clear, but if Ayn Rand is going to fly in and shit on my pasture then I guess the jig is up.
Fuck this shit.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
It's called homeopathy, and they didn't need to change the name in centuries.
Rethinking email
Unlike politicians, doctors have a code of ethics that can get their license to practice revoked, even if the law said they were supposed to do something.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: antibiotics do not *cause* antibiotic resistance in bacteria. They only *select* mutations that already randomly occur. That's how evolution works. If these mutations did not have a drawback, they would long ago have become standard traits. In fact, there are cases where certain bacteria are always resistant to certain antibiotics. That's because those are the rare cases where being antibiotic resistant did not come with a drawback.
The point here is that if you look hard enough, you will find these same mutations everywhere. Does that mean we should panic and start passing stupid laws? Of course not. Every one of these mutations comes with something that makes it bad in the normal bacterial population. Consider people who are born with no legs at a time when humans are being attacked by something that only eats knees. It would be a beneficial trait (more fit) in that situation, but it would still be a negative (less fit) without that outside influence.
These are not "super-bugs" as the idiots would have you believe. They're the freakish mutant bugs, who happen to be resistant to antibiotics but whom the other bug all think are weirdos. They occasionally pop up in random places, but that doesn't mean there's going to be an epidemic. It just means there's been a normal random occurrence and there's nothing to freak out about.
Someone was showing off, but didn't bother to confirm the spelling/punctuation. ;-)
Dommage.
I'm on Obamacare, my plan doesn't cover a $150 price for prescription placebos.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
And the only side effect is global genocide of endangered species as poachers harvest the magic storing organs to mix in with those magic herbs.
Atleast homeopathic treatments promote conservation. Their treatments don't even contain a single molecule the active ingredient they claim.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Soon a doctor will be unable to perform even the smallest surgery Because the infection you will get be worst than what ever ails you. Perhaps 7 billion people will die as this gets us back to pre antibiotic population numbers.
The insurance companies won't reimburse them.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
> In the case of doctors, I doubt it's because of greed.
Agreed, doctors do well for themselves generally, any kickback they could get from drugs as cheap as run of the mill antibiotics would be hardly worth it.
> In my admittedly anecdotal experience, older doctors seem more likely to prescribe antibiotics
This.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Plank
While I know doctors have to keep up with the latest medicine, its a very wide field and there is only so much they can realistically do. My own paediatrician, who retired when I was about 16, used to argue that antibiotics should be prescribed for any illness, even a virus, because it prevented opportunistic infections.
Then she retired, and I garauntee few of the new doctors who have graduated since then are advocating such a position.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Not direct greed, but doctors telling idiot patients "no, you can't have that: you don't need it" often lose those idiot patients. And the money that comes from it.
All this scary doom and gloom talk about the end of the world due to antibiotic resistance. Its the same old story, somebody sees a problem they assume static conditions (ie no new antibiotics will be developed) against escalating problem (microbes are developing resistance to antibiotics) and presto draw the conclusion that we are all doomed. Has not happened will not happen. Recent research shows many new antibiotics are beginning to come out of the lab that directly attack the most drug resistant strains. The method used to develop them is amazingly targeted so they will be like the fabled magic bullet that kills just the bad germs. They are not broad spectrum however they do not need to be. Too much talk about restricting use of current antibiotics to maintain their effectiveness. Bad policy. We should instead work on creating great tools for identifying causative agents virus vs bacteria and type quickly so we know what to use when. It would save money and improve peoples health. Now its oh you have an infection here's some pills. If you don't get better call me. Instead it should be here let me take a sample and put it in the Germ Ident 1000. Ah here is shows you have virus 2187 no antibiotic needed. Just take this decongestant, fever reducer and anti nausea pills stay home for 4 days and you will be fine.
In the real world, there are those that only care about the short-term, and thus will betray their own long-term interest for the sake of short-term gain.
There are also those that only care about themselves, and see nothing wrong with wreaking havoc and then leaving others to deal with the problem.
Lastly, the Free Market also assumes everyone has access to sufficient information to act rationally--this is not always the case.
I doubt that the resistance was particularly directed a vancomycin. Many antibiotic resistence genes operate on a wide variety of antibiotics, so a resistence developed against one antibiotic and yiled resistence against many. E.g., some of the genes make pumps that pump the antibiotic out of the cell. These are often adapted to a wide variety of antibiotics, including many that the cell line has never experienced.
P.S.: In evolutionary theory this is called "preadaption". It's a poor name, but a common phenomenon.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
and once it's all gone, we're all fucked.
Clearly people will act out of self-interest to avoid that.
No, that's not at all clear. People often act against their own interests--how else do you explain poor people who vote against expanding medical coverage for poor people?
Nobody with the bleeding-edge skilz required to implement unicode, apparently.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
that converges to totalitarianism if left unchecked.
Capitalism allows capital to claim part of the added value generated in the economy. This augments capital, and allows it to claim even more added value in the next cycle. And therefore it can grow exponentially. Labour, on the other hand, can also claim part of the added value, but has to spend it on food, housing, etc. in order to continue. Labour can grow exponentially through breeding, but lately, in developed countries, this growth has halted.
Hence Capitalism, if left unchecked, will concentrate capital in the hands of a few, namely the ones that started out with most capital and made the best investment decisions. Society will try to redistribute some of the gains of these capitalists, who will react to these pressures by using part of their capital gains to promote totalitarianism.
Corporate bylaws demand it, usually, otherwise the "Free Market" enforces it by putting the health-conscious farmer out of business.
Am actually in San Francisco at the moment and paid about $19 a pound for some grass-fed beef the other day so I guess some are actually making money at it. (Better than home-grown; skilz.)
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Indicates that improper practices have caused a widespread change in the ecology of our biosphere.
If this is not a serious problem for you then okay, whew, dodged a bullet. I feel better now but others who've been misled by Scientific American Magazine's scary doom and gloom talk about the end of the world due to antibiotic resistance should be immediately informed to prevent any hysteria. You sir, should not waste time posting on slashdot but should immediately demand a retraction.
Think of the children.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Sand has antibiotic-resistant genes now?
I just discovered this a few months ago, looked up the definition, and went "whaaaaa? People believe this???"
If the hospitals go back to using copper rather than stainless steel for metal surfaces it may help.
Good call. 19th century science ftw! Silver is also antiseptic and probably less toxic. It evaporates even faster upon contact with tweakers, however.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
It could still be cheaper than an ineffective attempt at controlling antibiotics use. "Drug resistant" bacteria are only resistant to certain drugs. The mechanisms that introduced that resistance should weaken them in other ways.
Cocoa.
I can think of another longer-running global biological experiment that produced, among other things, Justin Bieber.
Time to dump the lot in a bright yellow trash bag and start over.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
We also need to strip the medical licenses of doctors who give out antibiotics for the cold. Either they're shockingly ignorant of the last 20 years of research and aren't fit to be doctors, or they're intentionally contributing to a real health hazard and should face criminal charges.
"Intent" is an interesting legal concept. Shocking ignorance would amount to negligence, perhaps gross negligence. However I feel the doctors in question are guilty of more than that. The highest level of intent, 'purposely' or 'knowingly' might be a tad too strong, as in its difficult to think a doctor actually wants or desires global killer resistant infections to arise. However, the standard of "Reckless" seems to apply really well. Reckless is commonly viewed as knowing a certain outcome or result was likely and acting with blatant disregard for that outcome. The two classic examples of reckless are: #1 shooting a gun in the woods at a deer that is a few hundred yards in front of a school and #2 drag racing on a public street (Fast and Furious style). In both situations, if any bystander is killed the person(s) involved could be convicted of murder (vs manslaughter which is viewed as a negligent killing). In neither case was there a desire to kill bystanders, but in both situations the activities were so dangerous and involved such a high risk that the intent requirement for murder was met.
It's relatively common knowledge that colds and the flu are caused by viruses, which can't be affected by antibiotics. At the same time there's a strong and very perverse financial incentive to incorrectly prescribe antibiotics: it gets rid of patients quickly, allowing a doctor to increase daily billables (via patients seen). It may also help retain hypochondriac patients. I would argue that since multiple-resistant bacteria are also common knowledge (terms like superbug are in common use) doctors are acting with deliberate knowledge of a serious risk for their own gain. They are specifically acting contrary to their oath(s) - prescribing unnecessary medicine, and (since all medications have side effects) causing unnecessary harm to their own patients. They are also violating the spirit (if not the letter) of their oath(s) in that they have a duty towards humanity not to create or cause killer diseases that kill or sicken lots of people.
It's honestly an indefensible action. The defensive arguments simply don't hold. If the doctor is worried about liability (ie failing to prescribe an antibiotic when the illness turns out to be bacterial) they can simply do what all doctors do, everywhere, and order a test. There, ass covered. If they're sick of dealing with hypochondriacs they can go old-school and actually talk to them, or they can simply suggest that person find another doctor.
Lastly, I suggest anyone reading this who is skeptical that doctors' practices would turn into little more than pill factories, try this. Call a bunch of different doctors' offices in Davis, California and just listen to the answering machine messages. I was shocked the first time I heard "Please tell us what prescriptions you need from us" on an _answering machine_ I thought the function of a doctor was to tell me what prescriptions I need.
ITYM "cows prophyllactically treated" rather than "cows therapeutically treated in response to a bacterial infection".
There's nothing wrong with treating a cow with (say) an infected cut with antibiotics. It's the mass dosing of the herds with sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics that are stimulating the development of antibiotic resistance.
One way of achieving that would be to (1) make veterinary antibiotics available only on prescription by a licensed veterinarian (that may or may not be the case in your country at the moment ; I don't know) - the cost of getting the vet out would be sufficient discouragement to severely reduce the competitive advantage that the farmers would otherwise gain ; and (2) treat possession of (say) a kilo of un-prescribed antibiotics the same way that possession of a kilo of un-prescribed di-acetyl morphine would be treated (that's heroin to the rest of us).
I wonder ... if the antibiotic resistance genes used as markers for gene insertion are for antibiotics that work against bacteria, but only at doses that would be economically unproductive to make enough of the drug, or at doses that would kill the patient before it kills the bacteria. Or antibiotics that are only effective against a narrow range of bacteria? (Which wouldn't be a problem in lab testing, but would render the antibiotic unimportant from a therapeutic POV.) IANA biologist, but this sounds almost interesting.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"