I read with interest the editorial by Paccaud and the article by So and colleagues in the BMJ( 11 April 2012), particularly Paccaud’s comment ”…that we urgently need to step outside traditional approaches”. I and colleagues have submitted applications to The Gates Foundation, the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and the Wellcome for a proof of principle project to use targeted gold/iron nanoparticles against multi-drug resistant bacteria followed by exposure to a variable magnetic field which will heat up the nanoparticles (bound to the surface of the bacteria ) and hopefully kill the bacteria. Thus far we have been met by incompetence and derision from the referees. Incompetence, because two of the criticisms related to the lack of co-applicants who lacked any knowledge of nanoparticles or anyone who was a physicist. Both criticisms factually incorrect had they read the attached CV’s. One comment was “it has not worked in oncology so it will not work here”. This I feel is not the best scientific approach to use.
The use of physical means to kill bacteria may, of course, not work but I hardly think it requires such a cavalier dismissal, especially as the nanoparticles are targeted to the organism, therefore are unlikely to affect the normal flora of a person and unlikely to generate further antibiotic resistance. The approach is , in relation to infection, different from the usual inhibition of a biochemical pathway. In any case, a preliminary proof of concept project involving in-vitro assessment of killing in a test tube or cell line would in my opinion be appropriate
I feel It would be helpful if referees from grant awarding bodies were not so dismissive when faced with something outside a traditional approach particularly when the traditional approach is failing. I perceive one bottleneck to development of novel antimicrobial approached is this Dismal Dennis approach to grant refereeing- exemplified by “oh it’s not going to work is it” with no factual foundation for the opinion.
Competing interests:
Related Grant Applications-refused
Rapid Response:
Re: Antibiotic drug research and development
Dear Sir
I read with interest the editorial by Paccaud and the article by So and colleagues in the BMJ( 11 April 2012), particularly Paccaud’s comment ”…that we urgently need to step outside traditional approaches”. I and colleagues have submitted applications to The Gates Foundation, the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and the Wellcome for a proof of principle project to use targeted gold/iron nanoparticles against multi-drug resistant bacteria followed by exposure to a variable magnetic field which will heat up the nanoparticles (bound to the surface of the bacteria ) and hopefully kill the bacteria. Thus far we have been met by incompetence and derision from the referees. Incompetence, because two of the criticisms related to the lack of co-applicants who lacked any knowledge of nanoparticles or anyone who was a physicist. Both criticisms factually incorrect had they read the attached CV’s. One comment was “it has not worked in oncology so it will not work here”. This I feel is not the best scientific approach to use.
The use of physical means to kill bacteria may, of course, not work but I hardly think it requires such a cavalier dismissal, especially as the nanoparticles are targeted to the organism, therefore are unlikely to affect the normal flora of a person and unlikely to generate further antibiotic resistance. The approach is , in relation to infection, different from the usual inhibition of a biochemical pathway. In any case, a preliminary proof of concept project involving in-vitro assessment of killing in a test tube or cell line would in my opinion be appropriate
I feel It would be helpful if referees from grant awarding bodies were not so dismissive when faced with something outside a traditional approach particularly when the traditional approach is failing. I perceive one bottleneck to development of novel antimicrobial approached is this Dismal Dennis approach to grant refereeing- exemplified by “oh it’s not going to work is it” with no factual foundation for the opinion.
Competing interests: Related Grant Applications-refused