Waves of attention: patterns and themes of international antimicrobial resistance reports, 1945–2020

This article uses quantitative and qualitative approaches to review 75 years of international policy reports on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our review of 248 policy reports and expert consultation revealed waves of political attention and repeated reframings of AMR as a policy object. AMR emerged as an object of international policy-making during the 1990s. Until then, AMR was primarily defined as a challenge of human and agricultural domains within the Global North that could be overcome via ‘rational’ drug use and selective restrictions. While a growing number of reports jointly addressed human and agricultural AMR selection, international organisations (IOs) initially focused on whistleblowing and reviewing data. Since 2000, there has been a marked shift in the ecological and geographic focus of AMR risk scenarios. The Global South and One Health (OH) emerged as foci of AMR reports. Using the deterritorialised language of OH to frame AMR as a Southern risk made global stewardship meaningful to donors and legitimised pressure on low-income and middle-income countries to adopt Northern stewardship and surveillance frameworks. It also enabled IOs to move from whistleblowing to managing governance frameworks for antibiotic stewardship. Although the environmental OH domain remains neglected, realisation of the complexity of necessary interventions has increased the range of topics targeted by international action plans. Investment nonetheless continues to focus on biomedical innovation and tends to leave aside broader socioeconomic issues. Better knowledge of how AMR framings have evolved is key to broadening participation in international stewardship going forward.

Making sense of it all: Ethical reflections on the conditions surrounding the first genome-edited babies

In November 2018 the birth of the first genome-edited human beings was announced by Chinese scientist, He Jiankui. The ensuing ethical controversy, institutional investigations and legal proceedings led to the revision of standards, rules and procedures at many levels. Arguably, however, these developments have not fundamentally changed the conditions or the culture that nourished He Jiankui’s vaulting ambition in the first place and enabled it to find expression. In this paper we explore the clinical, regulatory and societal circumstances of the ‘gene-edited baby’ case, the political, cultural and economic conditions that created a radical and dangerous climate for biotechnology innovation, and the responsibilities of the international research community, many of whose members were apprised of Dr He’s intentions. The aim is not to heap anathemas on the heads of implicated individuals but to draw attention to the need for different communities (researchers, authorities and domestic publics) to play a part actively in the governance of biomedical innovation and for research to be bridled by human values.

First person – Melisa Jovita Andrade

ABSTRACT First Person is a series of interviews with the first authors of a selection of papers published in Journal of Cell Science, helping early-career researchers promote themselves alongside their papers. Melisa Jovita Andrade is first author on ‘RPA facilitates rescue of keratinocytes from UVB radiation damage through insulin-like growth factor-I signalling’, published in JCS. Melisa Jovita is a joint PhD student in the lab of Professor K. Satyamoorthy at Manipal School of Life Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, where her current research interests lie in understanding the cellular responses of skin cells to ultraviolet B radiation (UVBR) and the mechanistic pathways of cellular damage protection by growth factors in 2D and 3D photobiology human skin models.

Can Financial Economics Cure Cancer?

Funding for early-stage biomedical innovation has become more difficult to secure at the same time that medical breakthroughs seem to be occurring at ever increasing rates. One explanation for this counterintuitive trend is that increasing scientific knowledge can actually lead to greater economic risk for investors in the life sciences. While the Human Genome Project, high-throughput screening, genetic biomarkers, immunotherapies, and gene therapies have made a tremendously positive impact on biomedical research and, consequently, patient lives, they have also increased the cost and complexity of the drug development process, causing many investors to shift their assets to more attractive investment opportunities. This suggests that new business models and financing strategies can be used to reduce the risk and increase the attractiveness of biomedical innovation so as to bring new and better therapies to patients faster.