Are potential life-saving medicines being lost to extinction?
Every bit of habitat that disappears under the plough or concrete impoverishes nature and removes potential medicines. That is the central argument of a 2017 viewpoint published in the Journal of Global Health, a call to action introducing the Biodiversity to Biomedicine Consortium. It is a position statement written by scientists based at institutions on several continents, not a clinical trial and not a study that counted how many drugs have been lost.
Evolution has spent three billion years of trial and error honing the compounds produced by the enormous variety of species on this planet. Looking to nature for medicine is nothing new: humans have been doing it for tens of thousands of years. Modern pharmaceutical science has come a long way from those roots, but the authors argue that dismissing nature as a source of useful compounds and inspiration is a serious mistake, because evolution remains the greatest problem solver available.
What the authors put forward:
- Extinction crisis: Modern extinction rates are about 100 to 1000 times greater than extinction rates calculated over past eras
- Time depth: Natural compounds reflect three billion years of evolutionary trial and error
- Human history: People have drawn medicines from nature for tens of thousands of years
- Policy link: Preserving biodiversity is described as perhaps the single most important building block for achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations
The consortium frames biodiversity preservation as self-interest rather than sentiment, with drug discovery as the clearest case.
Dr. Kumar’s Take
This consortium’s warning connects directly to the penicillin story I covered in the podcast. A compound from a mold reshaped clinical medicine, and it was found in nature rather than designed at a bench. The authors here are making the same point at a much larger scale: the compounds that will matter to patients decades from now are sitting inside species nobody has studied yet, and habitat destruction is closing that catalogue before it can be read.
I find the argument about reagents the most sobering part. The authors point out that chemical reagents, whether natural or synthetic in origin, are non-renewable, and that using them depletes future resources. That reframes drug discovery as something that draws down a finite account, which is not how most clinicians think about the medicines on the shelf.
Their proposed remedy is structural rather than personal: build sustainability into the research model of every drug discovery program, synthetic or natural. That is a demand on institutions and funders, and it is the kind of change that only happens with sustained international cooperation.
What the Research Shows
This is a viewpoint article, so the content is argument and synthesis rather than new measurement. The core claims are these.
Extinction is running far above historical rates. Modern extinction rates are about 100 to 1000 times greater than extinction rates calculated over past eras. Set against the loss of habitat, that means molecular diversity is disappearing.
Biodiversity is a precondition for future drug discovery. The authors argue that preserving biodiversity provides a vital link to the molecular diversity that successful drug discovery will require, and that drug discovery from wild species has always been, and will continue to be, critical for most if not all aspects of health care, disease prevention, and wellness.
Knowledge matters as much as the species themselves. Resources and knowledge about the ecology, taxonomy, and usage of medicinally important organisms, both traditional and modern scientific, are described as too precious to squander.
Sustainability belongs inside the research model. Because chemical reagents from natural or synthetic sources alike are non-renewable, the authors conclude that all drug discovery programs need to build sustainability into how they operate.
Study Snapshot
What this publication actually is:
- Type: A viewpoint and call to action in the Journal of Global Health, published in 2017
- Authors: Scientists from universities and research institutes across multiple countries and disciplines
- Purpose: To introduce the Biodiversity to Biomedicine Consortium and argue for coordinated action
- Evidence base: Published extinction rate estimates and the authors’ assessment of drug discovery, not new experimental data
- Central figure cited: Modern extinction rates about 100 to 1000 times greater than rates calculated over past eras
The piece argues that biodiversity needs to be preserved in landscapes and natural habitats that people can access and enjoy, locally and worldwide, rather than surviving only in museum collections and zoos. Living, accessible biodiversity is treated as necessary both for understanding the workings of the biosphere and for sustaining the quality and longevity of human life.
Who Benefits Most
The authors tie biodiversity preservation to several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which points to who has a stake in it.
People whose health depends on future medicines. The link the authors draw to SDG-3, good health and well-being, rests on the claim that drug discovery from wild species will remain central to health care, disease prevention, and wellness.
Communities that live with inequality in access. The authors extend the argument to SDG-10, reducing inequalities, and SDG-12, responsible consumption and production, treating biodiversity as shared infrastructure rather than a resource for a few.
The public at large. Access to biodiversity as a living, evolving part of the planet has, in the authors’ view, the potential to increase public appreciation for these systems and processes. That is an argument for keeping habitats open and intact rather than reducing nature to collections.
Practical Takeaways
- Support habitat preservation, since the authors tie the loss of potential medicines directly to habitat disappearing under the plough or concrete
- Value living, accessible nature, not just specimens in museum collections and zoos
- Expect sustainability from drug discovery, which the authors argue must be built into the research model of every program, synthetic or natural
- Respect both traditional and scientific knowledge about the ecology, taxonomy, and usage of medicinally important organisms
- Treat environmental policy as health policy, which is the through line of the consortium’s argument
- Support research on natural products, given the authors’ position that nature remains an important source of useful compounds and inspiration
Safety, Limits, and Caveats
The most important limit is the nature of the publication itself. This is a viewpoint and a call to action, so it carries the authors’ judgement rather than original data, and readers should weigh it that way.
The headline extinction figure is a range, about 100 to 1000 times greater than rates calculated over past eras, and a range that wide reflects real uncertainty in how such rates are estimated. It supports the direction of the argument more than any precise accounting.
The authors’ central prescription, building sustainability into every drug discovery program and preserving biodiversity across many landscapes and habitats, requires coordination among scientists, governments, and industry across borders. Stating that goal is far easier than delivering it, and this article is the opening of that effort rather than a report on its results.
Related Studies and Research
Biodiversity: The Overlooked Source of Human Health and Medicine - Comprehensive analysis of how biodiversity loss threatens human health through multiple pathways including disease emergence and immune system impacts.
Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases - Shows how natural products like penicillin contributed to the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
The Vitamin D Hammer: A High-Dose Strategy for Beating the Flu Fast - Demonstrates how natural compounds can provide effective treatments for common illnesses.
Penicillin: The Accidental Discovery That Changed Medicine and Won a War - The foundational story of how a natural product from a mold revolutionized medicine.
Current Status of Clinical Trials for Phage Therapy - Explores how natural biological systems continue to inspire new therapeutic approaches.
Frequently Asked Questions
How fast are species disappearing?
Modern extinction rates are about 100 to 1000 times greater than extinction rates calculated over past eras.
Why can’t medicines simply be synthesized in the lab instead of sourced from nature?
The authors argue that nature is and will always be an important source of useful compounds and inspiration, because evolution has honed those compounds over three billion years of trial and error. They also note that chemical reagents are non-renewable whether they come from natural or synthetic sources, so synthesis does not remove the sustainability problem.
What does biodiversity have to do with health policy?
The authors treat preserving biodiversity as perhaps the single most important building block for achieving the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG-3 on good health and well-being alongside the more obvious environmental goals.
Is it enough to preserve species in museum collections and zoos?
The authors say no. They argue for preserving biodiversity in landscapes and natural habitats that people can access and enjoy, locally and worldwide, rather than only in museum collections and zoos, because living systems are what make understanding the biosphere and developing new medicines possible.
What is the consortium asking for?
It asks that sustainability be built into the research models of all drug discovery programs, synthetic or natural, and that the resources and knowledge surrounding medicinally important organisms be protected rather than squandered.
Bottom Line
The argument here is straightforward: habitat destruction removes potential medicines before anyone knows they existed, and extinction is running about 100 to 1000 times above the rates calculated for past eras. The Biodiversity to Biomedicine Consortium’s answer is to treat biodiversity preservation as a precondition for drug discovery and to build sustainability into how that discovery is done. This is a call to action rather than a result, but it is a call worth taking seriously, because the compounds being lost cannot be recovered once the species carrying them are gone.
Final Study Link
Read the full consortium statement: Biodiversity, drug discovery, and the future of global health
