Are we at war against superbugs? The risk of using war metaphors in science

In the biological and biomedical sciences, the use of the metaphor of war is recurrent. It is used above all to refer to the microscopic world. Thus, pathogenic bacteria are described as “(invisible) enemies” that we have to “defeat” or “defeat” through “battles”, “combats” and even “wars”.

Although these metaphors are so recurrent in our language that we don’t usually question them, could one wonder if using them affects our actions in any way? That is, are metaphors more than just examples?

Natural selection and the book of life

In our daily life, metaphors abound. We usually use them to explain a complex topic. It is often easier if we establish relationships between abstract concepts and things that seem familiar to us. To do this, we highlight the characteristics they have in common.

For example, in explaining his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin used the metaphor of “natural selection.” He took a familiar element, the artificial selection of birds, to explain this new phenomenon.

In science, some metaphors have facilitated the understanding of a phenomenon and have steered the direction of research. For example, referring to the genome as the “book of life” was central to the launch of the Human Genome Project.

In addition, various empirical studies corroborate the power of metaphors. They can significantly influence how we react to a problem and the solutions we consider appropriate.

“The body is not a battlefield”

The “war against pathogenic bacteria” is not the only “war” that humanity has waged against microorganisms or diseases. Cancer, the Zika virus and, more recently, the coronavirus are just a few of our “adversaries”.

However, various academics have pointed out the possible negative consequences of using certain war words or metaphors.

in his essay The sickness and their metaphors, Susan Sontag called for rethinking the analogy between cancer and a battle. Sontag states: “We are not being invaded. The body is not a battlefield. The sick are not the inevitable casualties or the enemy.

In addition, he reflected on the emotional stress (guilt or fear) that this metaphor can cause in people with cancer.

Additionally, some empirical studies have shown that the war metaphor can reduce the willingness to adopt passive strategies for the prevention of this disease, as well as increase fatalism.

Words loaded with nationalism and xenophobia

On the other hand, its use can also mask social inequalities. At the end of 2015 there was a global Zika epidemic. And in January 2016, Brazil “declared war” on Zika. A study examined representations of the epidemic in the media and revealed that the dominant frame was “war”.

In this case, the use of the warlike image allowed attention to be diverted from the social inequality linked to Zika and attention was turned to the “war” that was waged against the mosquito that transmitted it.

Andrew Reynolds, author of Understanding Metaphors in the Life Sciences and professor at the University of Cape Breton (Canada), mentions that addressing health problems in terms of “war” can help mobilize public health efforts. However, he cautions that describing bacteria (and other pathogens) as “enemies” that “invade” our “earth/body” can evoke feelings of political nationalism and xenophobia.

For example, during his tenure and within the framework of the covid-19 pandemic, Donald Trump created and reinforced the association between the “invisible enemies” (the coronavirus) and immigrants. Thus, in April 2020 he announced the “suspension of migration” as a consequence of the “attack by the invisible enemy.”

Many other countries closed their borders, but note Trump’s choice of words. Furthermore, the former president had previously stated that illegal immigrants “infested” the United States.

If a nation is thought of as “a body”, then it is vulnerable to “infection” or “contamination” from “foreign” agents. That is, vulnerable to an “invasion”, which has a clear connotation of war.

In the association that Trump makes, immigrants are equated and become viruses. And vice versa, viruses in immigrants. In this metaphor, therefore, immigrants are dehumanized and viruses are personified.

Bacteria don’t have consciousness

Let’s focus on another example: “the war” against multi-resistant pathogenic bacteria, also called superbugs.

The association of bacteria as “enemies” has been found, at least, since the discovery of the etiological agent of tuberculosis in 1882 by Robert Koch, who considered them “the smallest but most dangerous enemies of humanity”.

The discovery of antibiotics (“magic bullets”) allowed several diseases that in the past were deadly to be cured today. However, its excessive use accelerated a natural process of selection pressure that allows some bacteria to survive and multiply even in the presence of one or several antibiotics.

In 2019, there were 1.27 million deaths from multi-resistant bacterial infections. And the future is not very bright: there are some microorganisms for which there is no treatment because they are resistant to all available antibiotics. A challenge for humanity.

However, using the concept of war as a way of emphasizing the problem is not without its consequences. Let’s see. Antibiotic resistance is an evolutionary process that will not go away by “killing” some bacteria. Likewise, conceiving bacteria from the war metaphor gives them a kind of consciousness, as if they sought to “evade” our defense mechanisms.

That is, we personify and anthropomorphize these organisms when they are only adapting to selection pressures.

Similarly, metaphors can evoke different sociopolitical ideologies. For this reason, Andrew Reynolds explains that scientists must think about how their language can be used to reinforce non-scientific agendas; for example, anti-immigration policies.

In a study, a discursive analysis of scientific articles that describe and frame the phenomenon of resistance to antibiotics in relation to global mobility was carried out. The researchers observed that the destination countries were characterized as “reservoirs” of multi-resistant bacteria, the product of “poor hygiene” and “inappropriate use of antibiotics.”

Instead, the travelers – mainly from Western and Northwestern Europe, North America and Australia – were defined as “unwitting victims of bacteria” and their countries, as “high income” with “better hygiene” and “controlled consumption of antibiotics”. In short, the planet is divided into healthy and unhealthy territories.

beyond the war

It is clear that a problem as broad and complex as antibiotic resistance will not be solved by changing our metaphors. However, your choice may influence how we approach the issue.

Our communication is full of metaphors. The important thing is to keep in mind when to use them, without assuming their effectiveness when such an assumption is not justified. In addition, we must reflect on what they want to tell us with them.

Beyond thinking about “enemies”, we need to opt for a better management of the use of antibiotics in the future; emphasize the common good of humanity and trust in science and maintain constant studies of microbial evolution and their interactions.

Finally, we are holobionts (an association of different species), so we must understand our interactions in terms of “rich diversity” and “balance” rather than “confrontation”.

Quoting Susan Sontag again: “And as for that metaphor, the military one, I would say, paraphrasing Lucretius: ‘Let’s give it back to those who make war.'”

Yersain Ely Keller de la Rosa, Master in Biochemical Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.