Economic solutions to an economic problem
T
he current system of antibiotic development and distribution needs changing, to align
commercial incentives with public needs. Accord‐ ing to the Review of Antimicrobial Resistance led by O’Neill, the heart of the problem is that the current system predicates drug profitability on their price and quantity sold. Therefore, it is critical to shift to a system that rewards innovation instead, based on its value to society. The review goes on to state that this could be achieved with a global ‘market entry reward’ system for antibiotics and alternative therapies. Companies that are successful in devel‐ oping a much-needed drug will be rewarded with a lump sum of 1.3 billion USD, effectively reim‐ bursing them for the high costs of drug develop‐ ment. Of course, the funding must come from some‐ where. The Review argues that since effective an‐ tibiotics are widely required in the field, the whole industry should be involved in developing new antibiotics. This has led to the suggestion of an ‘Antibiotic investment charge’, where pharma
“it is critical to shift to a system that rewards innovation instead, based on its value to society”
companies not doing AMR-based research would be levied depending on their sales, while those in‐ vesting an equivalent amount or more would be spared - a ‘pay-or-play’ system. Those that are not doing AMR-related research would be levied de‐ pending on their sales, while companies that are investing an equivalent or greater amount will be
To GM or not to GM?
the Oxford Scientist
It’s not about the science.
I
n 1983, a gene from Agrobacterium (a plant-in‐ fecting bacterium) was successfully inserted into a plant cell, marking a 'coming-of-age'
moment for plant genetic engineering. The result‐ ing possibilities seemed endless; pest-resistant, selffertilising and nutritionally-fortified crop varieties. But relatively little of this technology has been im‐ plemented on a global scale. Casual viewers might think the technology is
not safe, which is understandable given the ‘frankenfood’ labels given to the new GM crops. But this is a misconception as there is scientific consensus on their safety. The American Associ‐ ation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) stated in 2012 that the ‘science is quite clear’ re‐ garding the safety of biotechnology for crop im‐ provement. Demand for GM crops
T
he failure to integrate GM crops into main‐ stream agriculture is not due to lack of de‐
mand. In Tanzania, the loss of cassava crops due to virus outbreaks contributes to malnutrition and a shockingly high infant mortality rate. Tanzanian scientists have developed disease-resistant cassava strains that produce much greater yields than nat‐ ive varieties. Despite this, Tanzania is one of many African
countries that has a ‘strict liability’ stance against GM crops. Even when the crops were tested in fields, ‘biosafety’ rules saw their destruction fol‐ lowing harvest—mere miles away from starving families.
spared. This would provide funding, and also but encourage AMR-related research to benefit the in‐
Why did GM fail?
dustry as a whole.
T
We must slow down resistance, reduce unne‐ cessary antibiotic demand, and boost new drug de‐
he science says that genetically modified (GM) crops are safe, so why doesn’t the pub‐
lic believe this? First impressions stick, and the en‐
velopment. We can outrace resistance if we act
trance of GM crops into the industry has shaped
now—and it starts with recognising resistance as a
the public perception of them ever since.
global threat to humanity.
The herbicide Roundup™, originally manu‐ factured by Monsanto, is one notable example.
14
Cynthia Hou is a Biochemistry undergraduate at Magdalen
The first GM product launched was Roundup
College.
Ready soy in 1996; this allowed soy farmers to
