I don't mean to bash the reputation of the Lancet nor that of the authors.
But here's one thing to keep in mind with respect to this specific research. They examined the ability of two specific strains of bacteria to develop resistance. There are tons of microbial pathogens mixed together and 'promiscuously' swapping genetic material [including those for resistance] out there in the real world. Two specific strains (one for S. typhimurium and one for S. aureus) in isolation are like two water molecules in the ocean. It's a nice start, but it's far from the finish line.
Also, keep in mind that the corresponding authors are academics (UCSB). The bar is pretty low with respect to what they have to deliver. I don't mean that as an insult--their job is basic research. Their job is not to make a marketed product.
I used to be an "ivory tower snob." I thought university profs were a cut above industry researchers, but it's far more mixed (in my experience) and the research (between industry and academia) is judged by different metrics. In biotech, your research needs to lead to something that actually makes money. Otherwise, nobody cares. Academic research is far more exploratory, which is what I think this paper is an example of.
But here's one thing to keep in mind with respect to this specific research. They examined the ability of two specific strains of bacteria to develop resistance. There are tons of microbial pathogens mixed together and 'promiscuously' swapping genetic material [including those for resistance] out there in the real world. Two specific strains (one for S. typhimurium and one for S. aureus) in isolation are like two water molecules in the ocean. It's a nice start, but it's far from the finish line.
Also, keep in mind that the corresponding authors are academics (UCSB). The bar is pretty low with respect to what they have to deliver. I don't mean that as an insult--their job is basic research. Their job is not to make a marketed product.
I used to be an "ivory tower snob." I thought university profs were a cut above industry researchers, but it's far more mixed (in my experience) and the research (between industry and academia) is judged by different metrics. In biotech, your research needs to lead to something that actually makes money. Otherwise, nobody cares. Academic research is far more exploratory, which is what I think this paper is an example of.