ANTIVENOM: SAVING LIVES AT A COST

Each year, millions of people are bitten or stung by venomous animals, with snakebites alone causing up to 138,000 deaths annually. Antivenom remains one of the most effective treatments, but its production relies heavily on animals, raising long-standing ethical concerns about the cost of saving human lives.

​

The modern use of antivenom began in 1894 when French scientist Albert Calmette developed the first successful treatment for cobra bites. His method of injecting small amounts of venom into animals to produce antibodies became the foundation of antivenom production. The United States quickly adopted and expanded this approach in the early 20th century. Institutions such as Harvard Medical School and Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research helped standardize serum-based therapies, transforming antivenom from an experimental treatment into an organized field of biomedical research.

​

By the mid-20th century, antivenom production in the U.S. became increasingly industrialized. Pharmaceutical companies like Wyeth and Merck & Co. played major roles in producing antivenom for both domestic and international use. At the same time, federal oversight expanded through agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which introduced regulations to ensure the safety and consistency of biologic products towards humans. This regulatory framework made antivenom more reliable but also more expensive and less accessible, especially outside the U.S.

Despite these advancements, the core production process has changed little since the early 1900s. Venom is extracted from animals and injected into host animals, most commonly horses, over weeks or months. As the animals develop immunity, their blood is collected and processed into antivenom. While effective, this method places a significant physical burden on the animals. Studies have documented issues such as abscesses, infections, and long-term organ damage in horses used repeatedly in production cycles.

​

In the United States, these concerns intersect with broader debates about animal research and regulation. Laws such as the Animal Welfare Act establish minimum standards for the treatment of animals in laboratories. However, critics argue that these protections often fall short, particularly for animals used in long-term pharmaceutical production like antivenom. This highlights a key ethical tension in U.S. biomedical science: regulations ensure product safety for humans but may not fully address the sustained suffering of animals.

​

In recent years, researchers have begun pushing for alternatives. Scientists like Andreas Hougaard Laustsen advocate for recombinant antivenom developed through biotechnology rather than live animals. Since the 2010s, advances in synthetic antibody production have shown promise, though these methods remain costly and are not yet widely available. At the same time, global recognition of the issue has grown, emphasizing the need for both improved access and innovation. This reflects a broader shift: antivenom is no longer seen only as a medical product but as part of a larger system involving ethics, inequality, and global health infrastructure.

​

Ultimately, antivenom development in the United States illustrates a long-standing dilemma in medicine. The country helped industrialize and regulate production, making treatments safer and more standardized. Yet this progress has depended on animal-based systems that raise serious ethical concerns. As new technologies emerge, the challenge is not just improving antivenom, but rethinking how it can be produced in a way that reduces harm while still saving lives.

​

Sources:

Animal Welfare Act. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2159. United States Congress, 1966 (amended 1970–present).

“Antivenin (Latrodectus mactans) [Prescribing Information].” Pfizer Laboratories.

​

Botting, Jack H. “The Control of Malignant Hypertension.” In Animals and Medicine: The Contribution of Animal Experiments to the Control of Disease, 1st ed., edited by Regina M. Botting. Open Book Publishers, 2015.

​

Camphora, Ana Lucia. “Horses as a Material Asset in Antivenom Production: What Is Their Limit?” International Animal Health Journal 11, no. 2 (2023): 28–30.

​

Camphora, Ana Lucia. “Horses Used for Large-Scale Production of Immunoglobulins: An Inter-Species Approach.” International Animal Health Journal 8, no. 4 (2020): 12–14.

​

Flexner, Simon. “The Results of Serum Therapy in Experimental Infections.” Journal of Experimental Medicine 5, no. 2 (1900): 211–234.

​

Fry, Bryan, ed. Venomous Reptiles and Their Toxins : Evolution, Pathophysiology and Biodiscovery. New York: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015

​

Kini, R. Manjunatha, Sachdev Sidhu, and Andreas Hougaard Laustsen. “Biosynthetic Oligoclonal Antivenom (BOA) for Snakebite and Next-Generation Treatments for Snakebite Victims.” Toxins 10, no. 12 (2018): 534. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins10120534

​

Markwell, Kevin, and Cushing, Nancy. Snake-Bitten : Eric Worrell and the Australian Reptile Park. Chicago: NewSouth Publishing, 2010.

​

Merck & Co.. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck & Co., various editions

​

Miranda, A. L. S., B. C. Antunes, J. C. Minozzo, S. A. Lima, A. F. M. Botelho, M. T. G. Campos, C. Chávez-Olórtegui, and B. Soto-Blanco. “The Health Status of Horses Used for at Least Six Complete Cycles of Loxoscelic Antivenom Production.” Toxins 15, no. 10 (September 26, 2023): 589. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15100589

​

Nicholson, Edward. Indian Snakes: An Elementary Treatise on Ophiology with a Descriptive Catalogue of the Snakes Found in India and the Adjoining Countries. Madras: Higginbothams and Co., 1870.

​

Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Annual Report of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. New York: Rockefeller Institute Press, 1900.