"They try to mimic what the immune system does: the polymer attaches to the bacteria's membrane and then facilitates destabilization of the membrane. It falls apart, everything falls out and there's little opportunity for it to develop resistance to these polymers."
Developing resistance is not individual bacteria "going to the gym" and training to be stronger.
To develop resistance, all that is needed is a random genetic mutation that makes a few of the bacteria cells less susceptible to the polymer. The polymer kills all other cells, and the resistant strain grows in numbers and takes their place.
Then it quits working (unlikely if the polymer attaches to vital cell membrane mechanisms but anyway). So what? Make a new polymer. That's the point; this can attack whatever. Its no longer a terrible problem if disease cells change or new ones appear.
And what's the alternative? Don't attack the cells? Let people get sick and die now, because in the future this mechanism which we aren't using might be obsolete? What's the logic there?
ORLY? Sorry to sound condescending but your glib comment shows an utter lack of awareness about discovering or designing novel drugs. It is never as simple as changing a line of code to get a new molecule that will kill the now resistant bugs and have no new adverse effects on the host.
Drug resistance is a huge problem today and threatens to grow bigger, where pathogens become resistant to drugs (known to be generally safe) and the arsenal of medicines is empty or has investigational drugs of unknown safety.
And what's the alternative? Don't attack the cells?
No. The alternative, in the short term, is to avoid indiscriminate use of drugs that still work, by testing the infecting bugs for pre-existing resistance markers and then using drugs that are orthogonal to co-evolving resistance mutations.
In the longer term, discovering wholly new classes of drugs, like this polymer, but testing for safety and adverse side-effects, is going to be our best hope. Again, the caveat against indiscriminate use applies.
This is absolutely not 'a new drug'. This wasn't made through the tedious try-1000-things-and-see-what-sticks.
This was a DESIGNED polymer, made explicitely through chemistry to attack a particular animicule.
The old antibiotics are done; the CDC calls the age of antibiotics 'over'. There is no longer any use in stonewalling or holding back on chemistry through some fear that it will ruin the status quo. The status quo is 'nothing works'.
This is a game-changer. The old arguments, the old ways of thinking, are probably obsolete.
\
So cut out the 'glib' stale arguments and read the article again; come up with a cogent point.
You do know what an Eco-system is, don't you? Where things are linked in non-obvious ways, and changes almost certainly initiate other changes.
This silver bullet mentality is prone to disaster. The bacteria may evolve, starting an arms race, leading to stronger bacteria, or possible fragmentation that makes management or synthesis time-consuming, difficult or may strengthen other nasties.
Do you really know what the impacts are likely to be? I'm sure you don't, which is why caution is essential. Flippant "silver bullet" speculation not-withstanding.
Getting pretty esoteric there. So, you're about to be run over by a bus - do you just stand there contemplating your position in the universe, what good could be caused by your death, and let yourself be killed?
The talk of ecosystems is overused. In 'nature' its 'every organism for itself'. That means we get to try to outrun the bugs any way we can.
To be fair, I didn't see anybody suggest that. This conversation tributary was about using the polymer as broadly as antibiotics are used now, in agriculture etc.
But yeah, caution might be a good idea.