Reason Writers Around Town

April 21, 2007

In the Wall Street Journal , Katherine Mangu-Ward looks at the legacy of Rachel Carson.

Comments

|4.21.07 @ 9:27AM|#

"the Rachel Carson of global warming"

With a little luck the socialists will get bored with their 'global warming' fad before they can do much economic damage, but it might take a real war or major natural disaster to distract them. With less luck they'll never realize that the climate doesn't respond to higher tax rates and redistribution scams, and keep doing more of the same.

LarryA|4.21.07 @ 9:31AM|#

Layout note:

"The real legacy of Rachel Carson Katherine Mangu-Ward"

?

The Wine Commonsewer|4.21.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Excellent.

Tim Lambert|4.21.07 @ 10:47AM|#

Hey cool, you can play DDT ban myth bingo with her article.

You can tell when someone like Mangu-Ward writes a piece on how Rachel Carson was worse than Hitler really has no clue when they write a piece about how DDT could have eliminated malaria and don't ever mention that mosquitoes evolve resistance to DDT.

Grotius|4.21.07 @ 11:56AM|#

FWIW - wikipedia on DDT and mosquito resistance. Something for everyone there I guess.

My take on DDT? It is neither an existential evil nor the greatest boon to human society since the advent of the plow. It is a particular piece of technology and should be used where efficacious.

Allen|4.21.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Ah yes, another myth the greens like to Spread --> DDT just doesn't work because the mosquitoes develop resistance. The problem is there is little evidence that the resistance is passed along to the next generation of mosquitoes and at that the resistance affects DDTs ability to prevent indoor transmission of it. It's a bit like arguing that some infections have developed resistance to anti-biotics that we should simply stop using them .

Grotius|4.21.07 @ 11:59AM|#

Allen,

From what I read on wikipedia the issue seems to in part be where people sleep. If you sleep inside apparently its use is quite effective, whereas if you sleep outside its use is less so or may even increase the number of malaria deaths.

Grotius|4.21.07 @ 12:08PM|#

The DDT debate is a pretty fine example of how we place on technology human attributes.

Tim Lambert|4.21.07 @ 12:22PM|#

Allen doesn't think that evolved resistance is inherited.

Err, you might want to look into how evolution works, Allen.

Grotius|4.21.07 @ 12:26PM|#

Tim Lambert,

Well, it may or may not be inherited depending on the particular individual, etc. It does sound like though that the issue of mosquito resistance to DDT isn't binary in nature.

biologist|4.21.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Allen, in case you missed the news recently, the CDC has called for ending the use of fluoroquinolones (one class of antibiotics) for treating gonorrhea because there are too many strains of gonorrhea developing resistance.

nice strawman, though. calling for minimizing DDT use in order to minimize resistance is not the equivalent of calling for ending the use of all antibiotics because some strains are resistant to some antibiotics.

keep on telling yourself that it's just those delusion greens making things up again

Grotius|4.21.07 @ 12:31PM|#

biologist,

Thanks for the info.

|4.21.07 @ 1:26PM|#

"Ah yes, another myth the greens like to Spread"

It ain't easy being green.

But green's the color of Spring.
And green can be cool and friendly-like.

|4.21.07 @ 1:40PM|#

"Silent Spring" 1972 - the reduced usage of DDT in malaria eradication starts about a decade earlier because of the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.

See, Garrett, L (1994). The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance. Penguin Books, UK.

Also a nifty article on malaria eradication programs...

http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/4/301.pdf

|4.21.07 @ 2:31PM|#

The following abstract raises some issues of interest, I would think, to the libertarian worldview...

"It's a bit like arguing that some infections have developed resistance to anti-biotics that we should simply stop using them ."

ETHICS AND DRUG RESISTANCE

MICHAEL J. SELGELID
The Australian National University, Australia
Michael J. Selgelid, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE); and Menzies Centre for Health Policy, The Australian National University, LPO Box 8260, ANU Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. Email: [e-mail]

The Australian National University, Australia

Michael J. Selgelid, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE); and Menzies Centre for Health Policy, The Australian National University, LPO Box 8260, ANU Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. Email: [e-mail]

ABSTRACT


This paper reviews the dynamics behind, and ethical issues associated with, the phenomenon of drug resistance. Drug resistance is an important ethical issue partly because of the severe consequences likely to result from the increase in drug resistant pathogens if more is not done to control them. Drug resistance is also an ethical issue because, rather than being a mere quirk of nature, the problem is largely a product of drug distribution. Drug resistance results from the over-consumption of antibiotics by the wealthy; and it, ironically, results from the under-consumption of antibiotics, usually by the poor or otherwise marginalized. In both kinds of cases the phenomenon of drug resistance illustrates why health (care) - at least in the context of infectious disease - should be treated as a (global) public good. The point is that drug resistance involves 'externalities' affecting third parties. When one patient develops a resistant strain of disease because of her over- or under-consumption of medication, this more dangerous malady poses increased risk to others. The propriety of free-market distribution of goods subject to externalities is famously dubious - given that the 'efficiency' rationale behind markets assumes an absence of externalities. Market failure in the context of drug resistance is partly revealed by the fact that no new classes of antibiotics have been developed since 1970. I conclude by arguing that the case of drug resistance reveals additional reasons - to those traditionally appealed to by bioethicists - for treating health care as something special when making policy decisions about its distribution.

|4.21.07 @ 2:33PM|#

The above from

Bioethics

Volume 21 Issue 4 Page 218 - May 2007

Grotius|4.21.07 @ 2:42PM|#

I conclude by arguing that the case of drug resistance reveals additional reasons - to those traditionally appealed to by bioethicists - for treating health care as something special when making policy decisions about its distribution.

All healthcare? If so, why?

|4.21.07 @ 3:04PM|#

In no way did KM-G Godwinize Carson, Mr. Lambert. RTFA:

Carson cannot be blamed directly for these deaths. She didn't urge total bans in "Silent Spring." Instead, on the single page obliquely acknowledging DDT as an anti-malarial agent, she writes, "Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity.'"

Funny how what those against a total ban on DDT suggest matches what Carson wrote.

Kevin

|4.21.07 @ 3:11PM|#

"Market failure in the context of drug resistance is partly revealed by the fact that no new classes of antibiotics have been developed since 1970."

Hey, mexicano nuevo, the author shares your disingenuity - he thinks that correlation is causation.

|4.21.07 @ 3:14PM|#

"Drug resistance results from the over-consumption of antibiotics by the wealthy; and it, ironically, results from the under-consumption of antibiotics, usually by the poor or otherwise marginalized."

Ironically? Seems like one thing contradicts the other. Either resistance is due to underuse, or it is because of overuse, not both.

|4.21.07 @ 3:17PM|#

"It ain't easy being green."

Seems like it is easier than being rational. Rationality takes effort...

Environmentalists are more like watermelons. Green from the outside, certainly RED on the inside, with all the ignorance of economics that that entails.

|4.21.07 @ 3:30PM|#

"The overall results of the study revealed that DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."

From teh link provided above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Mosquito_resistance_against_DDT

The most important front against the mosquito is still inside the home. The mosquitos still find DDT irritable.

uncle sam|4.21.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Overuse in the sense that people often used antibiotics when inappropriate. Underuse in the sense that peaple have stopped taking their prescription just because they are feeling better.

I lay the problem in widespread ignorance among humans. How can they make it out of high school without comprehending the difference between viral infections and bacterial infections? Why has "universal education" failed to eradicate this ignorance?

biologist|4.21.07 @ 4:44PM|#

uncle sam:

I've had students taking their prerequisite courses for nursing school that did not understand the difference between viruses and bacteria. People just don't care to learn, they have little curiosity about the world and how it works.

High school drags on too long for the apathetic - get those that don't care into a vocational/ technical program and let them get jobs.

|4.21.07 @ 6:56PM|#

"Carson cannot be blamed directly for these deaths"

Like hell, she can't!

She pumped up junk science to sell a book. The fact that hoardes of soft-headed bureaucrats were complicit in millions of preventable deaths doesn't diminish her crime in any way.

-jcr

|4.22.07 @ 3:41AM|#

"Funny how what those against a total ban on DDT suggest matches what Carson wrote."

True, but where are those that are for a total ban? A fringe about as informed as Allen or Francisco on the opposite side balances their uninformed view... but that doesn't make a total ban the position of "greens."

|4.22.07 @ 9:36AM|#

That abstract provides a good example of university condensed disconnection from ground truth.

Drug resistance is also an ethical issue because, rather than being a mere quirk of nature, the problem is largely a product of drug distribution.

No, it is related to improper usage. Antiobiotics are prescribed for problems they won't fix (colds), they are improperly used by patients (they don't take them as they are supposed to) or they are improperly available. In many third world countries you can buy antibiotics over the counter which increase improper use of antibiotics.

Resistance illustrates why health (care) - at least in the context of infectious disease - should be treated as a (global) public good.

Apparently the author is not familiar with the tragedy of the commons. Generally turning something into a (global) public good does not have good results. The decreasing wildlife and ocean fish populations in some areas gives an excellent example of this.

Market failure in the context of drug resistance is partly revealed by the fact that no new classes of antibiotics have been developed since 1970.

That statement gives pretty clear evidence that the author is either ignorant or a disingenuous hack.

1. New antibiotics do not require the development of a new class of antibiotic. A fair amount of new antibiotics have been developed since 1970.

2. There is a big market for new antibiotics, lots of demand and good profit making potential to whoever can develop and market a new antibiotic.

The market exists and the lack of development of new antibiotics has nothing to do with market failure and everything to do with the difficulty of the science.

Coming up with new antibiotics is a very difficult technical problem. It is not easy to develop a chemical that will attack bacteria and not damage the patients cells.

Difficult science not market failure is the reason more new antibiotics have not been developed.

|4.22.07 @ 10:10AM|#

As I read this article I thought: who in the heck is Katherine Mangu-Ward? No doubt an expert in matters of environmental science to be pontificating as she did. Then I found her blurb on the Reason Staff page:
Mangu-Ward is a graduate of Yale University, where she received a B.A. in political science and philosophy.
Lord I hope her training on environmental science consisted of more than the occasional lecture wedged between sipping pina colada's at some industry funded 'information session' in Nassau or the like....

|4.22.07 @ 12:05PM|#

What, did Reason decide that Ron Bailey was too credible, and you needed to knock yourselves down a couple notches?

K M-W? What are you, kidding me?

Please, tell me how a Suburban uses less energy than a Prius again.

|4.22.07 @ 1:01PM|#

More from the Bioethics article.

"Insofar as the economic rationale behind a market in medicine is based on the idea that markets promote utility, the legitimacy of a market in antibiotics falls away as argued above. The current global threat of drug resistance reveals that utilitarian aims would most likely be reached if the poor had better access to drugs than they do at present (i.e. largely via markets). On the one hand, the utilitarian rationale for improving access to medication for the poor, via resource redistribution, is quite straightforward: $10 worth of tuberculosis medication will generally have a far greater payoff in terms of quality of life improvement for an infected poor person than the same $10 could normally have, by paying for a movie ticket or restaurant meal, for someone who is relatively well off and healthy. On the other hand, however, the utilitarian rationale for improving access to medication for the poor is more profound: When a poor person cannot afford to finish her course of treatment, the resistant strain of disease that results may threaten everyone. Because this social cost (i.e. externality) of drug resistance is never factored into the market costs of medicines, we here have market failure.

When the public nature of drug resistance is taken into account, utilitarianism would favor increasing access to medicine for the poor over markets if the wider social consequences of drug resistance are sufficiently serious, assuming a more efficient system of distribution can be found. Assuming the consequences of drug resistance are sufficiently serious - which seems highly plausible, given the concerns of the WHO - then one can argue that equality and utility both favor improving access to antimicrobials for those who need them.

The remaining justification, if any, for a market in antimicrobials would be the libertarian idea that individuals have a right to engage in free-market transactions without coercive taxation for redistributive purposes. Assuming that utility would in fact be promoted by more socialized distribution of antimicrobials, the ethical question would then be: Do not equality and utility together outweigh the importance of free-market liberty, in the limited context of anti-infectives at least? Why should anyone think that liberty in the exchange of drugs is more important than these other two goods combined?(67) The idea that negative liberty should be given priority over both equality and utility regardless of the degree to which these latter two are threatened is implausibly extreme.(68) Key points to remember are that (1) ethically speaking, the usual justification for markets is the idea that they generally promote both utility and (negative) liberty, (2) there is no good (theoretical or empirical) reason to believe that markets promote utility in the context of antimicrobials - in virtue of public goods problems, and (3) the consequences of drug resistance may be disastrous, as opposed to merely suboptimal, from a utilitarian standpoint."

Notes:
67 A third reason in favor of increasing access to medicine is the idea that this would promote positive (if not negative) liberty as well. A fourth reason is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes a human right to health. A fifth reason is that the poor are often victims of past injustices warranting reparation.

68 The idea that 'side constraints' might be violated in order to avoid 'catastrophic moral horror' is suggested (though perhaps not fully admitted) even by Robert Nozick. R. Nozick. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books: 30n.

TJIT does a nice deconstruction of the abstract, but it is only the abstract he is deconstructing. Most of his concerns are addressed in the article.

Brian Schmidt|4.22.07 @ 2:05PM|#

K M-W:

"In recent years, many such groups tried to get a complete ban on all DDT uses by 2007 -- in time for Carson's birthday."

So was that statement an outright lie, or merely highly deceptive? The major environmental groups, including WWF, don't oppose DDT's limited use. Maybe she was talking about groups besides the ones she named, or maybe recent years to her means ten, fifteen, twenty years ago (IF they took that position then) and not what they actually want in the last five years.

Most charitably, maybe KMW is just regurgitating talking points without checking their accuracy. Too bad that's Wall Street Journal quality-level for Op-Eds.

|4.22.07 @ 2:50PM|#

More than 350 of the world's leading experts in malaria have signed an open letter of protest against plans for a global ban on the pesticide DDT, which they say will lead to millions more people dying in the developing world from the disease. . . .

Pushing for the ban are environmental groups, led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which argues that alternatives will be found to combat malaria before the ban becomes effective in 2007. It says the deadline will concentrate minds. . . .

WWF insists there is no risk of lives being lost if the global ban by 2007 is agreed. Clifton Curtis, director of its global toxic chemicals initiative, said: "We set an end-date as a motivational target. In our view, if you don't set a target you don't get decision-makers to focus on putting the money into the alternatives that are needed."

Malaria Fears over Planned DDT Ban, The Guardian, August 1999

Brian, I'd say Katherine Mangu-Ward's statement was accurate and not misleading, assuming this article is correct. In any case, I don't think it's fair to call her a liar or a regurgitator of talking points.

|4.22.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Incidentally, it does appear the WWF relented in its advocacy of a total ban on DDT:

Environmentalists have abandoned their outright opposition to one of the world's most virulent toxins - the pesticide DDT. The concession comes at the start of talks among 120 nations in Johannesburg aimed at agreeing a treaty to ban twelve of the most dangerous persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

During negotiations on the UN treaty last year, Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature demanded a global ban on DDT. It has been outlawed in most industrialised countries since being identified as a health hazard and wildlife killer in Rachel Carson's seminal 1960s book, Silent Spring. But the greens have bowed to criticism from doctors, who say that the pesticide remains their best weapon against the mosquitoes that carry malaria. The disease kills more than a million people a year.

Last year, WWF's Clifton Curtis said a total ban on DDT was necessary to "focus decision-takers on finding alternatives". But this year he says "exemptions should be allowed for DDT's continued use against malaria".

"Dirty Dozen," New Scientist, December 2000

Notice that Greenpeace is also named as an environmental group that once advocated a total ban on DDT.

|4.22.07 @ 3:54PM|#

Russel,

Nice digging.
So does Greenpeace and WWF get to speak for "greens?"

Is that the same as when the LP speaks for libertarians?

|4.22.07 @ 3:55PM|#

"Many groups"

Does two count as many now?

Is 7 years ago for a few months "recent years?"

Grotius|4.22.07 @ 4:18PM|#

Neu Mejican,

They are two of the most prominent environmental organizations in the U.S. They speak for "Greens" as much as any organization can speak for a group of people.

|4.22.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Neu Mejican:

So does Greenpeace and WWF get to speak for "greens?"

Take it up with the author of the New Scientist piece.

Does two count as many now?

Do you know only two environmental groups agitated for a total ban on DDT? The Guardian article refers to "environmental groups, led by the World Wide Fund for Nature." That could conceivably refer to only WWF and Greenpeace, but it suggests others.

Here's an article that refers to "the attempt by environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and WWF, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to ban the so-called 'dirty dozen' chemicals." That's three, and note the "such as."

I could go on digging, but I'm bored, and I don't see the point of doing your research for you.

Evidently Katherine Mangu-Ward thinks "many" environmental groups wanted to ban all uses of DDT. You don't have to believe her, but it's silly to assume she's wrong and demand proof she isn't.

Is 7 years ago for a few months "recent years?"

I'd say so, sure. Presumably Katherine Mangu-Ward also thinks so. Maybe you're so young you think of 8 years as a long time ago. Fine. But there's no need to draw uncharitable conclusions about Mangu-Ward, as Brian did.

Note that Mangu-Ward used the word tried, not have been trying: "In recent years, many such groups tried to get a complete ban on all DDT uses by 2007."

|4.22.07 @ 6:33PM|#

[e-mail]

The portion of the article you posted does not address any of the points I brought up. It consists mostly of boiler plate rhetoric like.

67 A third reason in favor of increasing access to medicine is the idea that this would promote positive (if not negative) liberty as well. A fourth reason is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes a human right to health. A fifth reason is that the poor are often victims of past injustices warranting reparation.

Entertaining boilerplate but the paper offers no evidence that antibiotic resistence is caused by market failure. Furthermore, and this is what really aggravates me, it does not describe how putting government bureacrats in charge of antibiotics will fix the problem.

The argument appears to be

1. Put government in charge of antibiotics

2 and then....... apparently a miracle occurs

3. Followed by no more antibiotic resistence problems.

It also ignores the role patient compliance plays in development of antibiotic resistence especially for diseases like tuberculosis.

Patient starts antibiotics for TB, patient feels better and stops taking antibiotics, before they are supposed to patient thus creates population of resident antibiotic resitant TB bacilli. Treatment of TB involves adhereing to the treatment guidelines for 6-9 months. Because of the length of the treatment patients stop treatment before they should even in cases where the medication is provided free of charge or at very low cost.

The paper had no relevance to the thread, did not say what the original poster said it did, and was posted merely to provide a prop for a disingenuous slap at libertarian philosophy.

It would be nice to at least try and keep the slaps at libertarian philosophy at least tangentially on topic.

uncle sam|4.22.07 @ 7:13PM|#

Why has "universal education" failed to eradicate this ignorance?

I thought this a rather leading question.
Of course, "universal education" has been provided by government.

The failure of government to eradicate critical ignorance in citizens tells us much.

It also tells us something about those who lay so much condemnation at the feet of "the market" but fail to see systemic problems in political systems.

Brian Schmidt|4.22.07 @ 8:33PM|#

Let's try the first, I repeat the first, link that comes up on a Google search:

"Is it safe? DDT was sprayed in America in the 1950's as children played in the spray, and up to 80,000 tons a year were sprayed on American crops. There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria.

I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight. But Richard Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he could accept the use of DDT when necessary in anti-malaria programs.

'South Africa was right to use DDT,' he said. 'If the alternatives to DDT aren't working, as they weren't in South Africa, geez, you've got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives.'

At Greenpeace, Rick Hind noted reasons to be wary of DDT, but added: 'If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it.'"



That's from the NY Times, the first link from searching for "world wildlife fund" ddt and malaria on Google.

So, either KMW knew this or she didn't. If she knew, she's either a liar or deliberately misrepresenting them. If she didn't, she's incompetent.

In case someone here attempts to claim that's not misrepresenting them, tell me if you think the reader would expect in recent years, Greenpeace and WWF would have taken the position that they did.

Had KMW acknowledged their changed position, she would have been clear, but as it is, the statement is deceptive.

|4.22.07 @ 11:41PM|#

Joe-I imagine one reason why they would go from RB to KMW is that it is VERY hard to get someone who has actually spent a great deal of time studying these issues to agree with what is "supposed to be the libertarian take on this." Of course, as someone who leans towards maximizing liberty, but who feels no obligation or duty to say what industry suggests, I don't see any conflict here between libertarianism and sound science. But many people do...

|4.23.07 @ 2:42AM|#

TJIT

"The paper had no relevance to the thread, did not say what the original poster said it did, and was posted merely to provide a prop for a disingenuous slap at libertarian philosophy."

Disingenuous slap at libertarian philosophy?

A recent paper in bioethics brings up an issue and frames it in terms of issues at the heart of libertarianism... said paper discusses an issue brought up on a libertarian thread...so I thought, hey, some here who would probably disagree with this paper might want to look at it and think about it...maybe even discuss why they disagree with the author, and you call that a disingenuous slap?

That makes your comment what then?

Something akin to "Entertaining boilerplate?"

"the paper offers no evidence that antibiotic resistence is caused by market failure."

So this means you read the whole article, I assume(and not just the abstract). I'll take your word for that, although you provide no evidence since you don't post anything that doesn't appear on this thread.

"The portion of the article you posted does not address any of the points I brought up."

Nor was it intended to.

"did not say what the original poster said it did"

How did this

"The following abstract raises some issues of interest, I would think, to the libertarian worldview..."

Get construed as a summary of the article?

Pinche puta pendejo

|4.23.07 @ 2:57AM|#

"It also ignores the role patient compliance plays in development of antibiotic resistence especially for diseases like tuberculosis."

From the Bioethics article...

"Another cause of drug resistance is the fact that patients often fail to complete treatment regimens prescribed."

"The failure to complete a full course of treatment, however, is by no means always the fault of the patient. 'Noncompliance', according to Paul Farmer, is usually a matter of ability rather than agency. 'Throughout the world', according to Farmer, 'those least likely to comply are those least able to comply'.45 As stated before, the poor are most likely to get sick and least likely to afford medical care when they do. They are also most likely to be unable to complete medical treatment once they start it. Poor people in developing countries, quite simply, often cannot afford to complete treatment..."

So you read the article... right?

On TB, a portion of the TB discussion.

"Ordinary tuberculosis can be treated with a six month course of treatment costing $10. While drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment takes two years and costs 100 times as much, '[e]ven then a cure is not guaranteed'. It is thus widely acknowledged that new TB drug development is needed, as there are now '300,000 new cases per year of MDR-TB worldwide'. In the meanwhile it is unfortunate that, according to the WHO, there has been 'a 40 year standstill in TB drug development'.(51)

Or should I assume that you bring up TB because it was mentioned prominently in the article?

You did read it, right?


Note: 51 World Health Organization. 2004. Drug Resistant Tuberculosis Levels Ten Times Higher in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Press Release, available at: http://www.who.int.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/mediacentre/releases/2004/prl17/en/print.html [Accessed 17 March 2004].

|4.23.07 @ 3:03AM|#

From the article.

"Medicine did subsequently shift focus away from bacteriology and parasitology to chronic illnesses such as heart disease and cancer - or what McKeown calls 'diseases of affluence'.8 The pharmaceutical industry, furthermore, has increasingly been busy with hugely profitable 'blockbuster' drugs for allergies and depression - and lifestyle drugs for things like baldness and impotence. The focus of industry research and development at present can largely be explained by the fact that the market for vaccines and antibiotics is relatively small. According to Peter N. Goodfellow of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, 'all revenues for all vaccines combined are less than one year's sales, in the USA, for [the antidepressant] PAXIL® . . . Antibacterials capture only 8% of the pharmaceutical market, and soon there will be no antibacterials in the top 20 selling drugs.'9 A lack of economic incentive has led to decreased antibiotic and vaccine research and development. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) claimed that '[s]ince 1970 no new classes of antibacterials have been developed to combat infectious diseases.' While '[o]n average, research and development of anti-infective drugs takes 10 to 20 years', at a cost in the neighborhood of US $500 million, 'there are no new drugs or vaccines ready to emerge from the research and development pipeline'.10"

Notes
T. McKeown. 1988. The Origins of Human Disease. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

9 P.N. Goodfellow. The Barriers to the Production of New Antibiotics. Presentation at the 3rd EMBL/EMBO joint Conference on Science and Society - Infectious Diseases: Challenges, Threats and Responsibilities. Heidelberg, Germany, 2002.

10 World Health Organization. 2000. Report on Infectious Diseases 2000 - Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance. Available at http://www.who.int.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/infectious-disease-report/2000/ [Accessed 30 August 2006].

|4.23.07 @ 3:07AM|#

Grotius,

"They are two of the most prominent environmental organizations in the U.S. They speak for "Greens" as much as any organization can speak for a group of people."

With this, I would agree.
Mainly just being cranky today.

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 7:40AM|#

Neu Mejican,

Ever listen to Brian McNeill's No Gods and Precious Few Heroes when you are cranky?

Russ 2000|4.23.07 @ 10:15AM|#

don't ever mention that mosquitoes evolve resistance to DDT.

So the use of DDT would have been reduced and possibly eliminated without the intervention of governments.

|4.23.07 @ 11:17AM|#

Neu Mejican,

Nothing you have provided puts forward any idea for how putting the government in charge of antibiotics is going to fix the problem.

You can whine and cry and curse, and stamp your feet all you want but your proposal still suffers from the miracle mile problem.

1. Put government in charge of antibiotics

2. A miracle occurs

3. No more antibiotic resistence problems

You have read the paper so I'm sure you can provide reams of proposals that can replace step number with something concrete and actionable, can't you?

Cheers,

TJIT

|4.23.07 @ 11:34AM|#

"So the use of DDT would have been reduced and possibly eliminated without the intervention of governments."

Eventually, after years of continuing to dump thousands of tons of the stuff into various ecosystems, with ever-diminishing returns, which would not only have done environmental damage, but also rendered the effective, responsible use indoors worthless.

|4.23.07 @ 11:38AM|#

Pinche puta pendejo

Oye, Mexicano Nuevo. In the first instance, learn to write proper Spanish. Puta means whore, which in the feminine. Pendejo means something like a$$hole, but it is in the masculine gender.

Second, there was NO reason to use that language, you disingenuous watermelon (green outside, certainly RED inside).

|4.23.07 @ 11:48AM|#

Eventually, after years of continuing to dump thousands of tons of the stuff into various ecosystems, with ever-diminishing returns, which would not only have done environmental damage, but also rendered the effective, responsible use indoors worthless.

The funny thing, Joe, is that DDT was sprayed in incredible quantities by GOVERNMENT agencies, all over the world. A private sector would most likely offer it to individual people at a certain price, making them use it in a more rational way (the price system does that, you see...) Instead, governments simply used it as if it were free...

|4.23.07 @ 11:55AM|#

TJIT
"your proposal still suffers from the miracle mile problem"

Ahhh.
So you think this is my proposal.

I didn't write the article.

I just thought people might find it interesting.

Francisco,

"proper Spanish"

In my town "Puta Pendejo" is idiomatic. It means "Whore's asshair."

"NO reason to use that language,"

Sorry to offend your delicate eyes. I was insulted and accused of being disingenuous and responded in kind.

"you disingenuous watermelon (green outside, certainly RED inside)."

That would be "Sandia," and it is not a very accurate description. I see you are perfectly willing to break with proper etiquette.

There are economic reasons for addressing many environmental issue, and most of the solutions for environmental problems will come from market actions. So are you accusing me of being republican on the inside?

|4.23.07 @ 12:09PM|#

"You have read the paper so I'm sure you can provide reams of proposals that can replace step number with something concrete and actionable, can't you?"

As is apparent even from just the abstract, this article is not aimed at making specific policy proposals. It is in the journal "Bioethics" and attempts to make the case that some goods, such as antibiotics, provide ethical motivations for developing policies. It is making the case for why certain goods might be treated differently than other goods, not proposing specific actionable proposals for what that treatment would look like.

|4.23.07 @ 3:40PM|#

Banning chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (DDT is one, but many others were also banned at the same time) was very wise. These compounds are extremely persistent in the environment so animals high on the food chain (e.g. predatory birds)ingest large amounts. In my neighborhood, (central Iowa) there were no eagles and few hawks 35 years ago, today there are many. Prior to the ban, corn farmers used huge quantities of chlorinated hydrocarbons and this devastated raptor populations (egg shells were too thin). Today, corn farmers control the same insect pests far more effectively and with far less environmental impact through the use of genetically modified corn hybrids.

|4.23.07 @ 8:31PM|#

Throughout the month of April, I have placed my own printed 'bumper sticker':

Happy 100th Birthday, Rachel Carson.
Your DDT Junkscience has killed over 30 million people.
Source: www.junkscience.com
April: Malaria Awareness Month

I stop at a lot of stop signs and red lights everyday and I've seen people read it in the parking lots! Good.