From Snakebites to Serpentariums

Abstract

What enables science's great achievements? A common intuitive response might be “scientific reasoning, of course.” That might include, first, skepticism, even toward dogma. Add theoretical insights. Powerful predictions. The logic of testing. But perhaps this generally revered truism—another Sacred Bovine?—might be subject to critical reappraisal. Consider our discoveries on the biology of snakebites. In the 1890s, nearly three thousand persons died annually in Brazil from encounters with venomous snakes. Many were illiterate immigrants working on coffee plantations or building the railroads that would help transport the coffee. Few doctors were available in rural areas, and they could only treat the symptoms, not counteract the poisons. Workers relied primarily on local healers with their spectrum of herbal remedies. But were any of them truly effective? How could science contribute to solving this important health problem? Young physician Vital Brazil Mineiro da Campanha (Figure 1) saw the challenge first-hand. With an eye toward helping his patients in the town of Botucatu, Sao Paulo state, he wanted to systematically test those purported treatments. Easier said than done. First, you need test animals. Fortunately for him, dogs, goats, and guinea pigs were readily at hand. But next, what about securing the test venom? You cannot theorize or reason snake venom into existence in your lab. You need actual creatures. Along with their real dangers. (And Brazil did indeed start the enterprise with a deep fear of snakes.) Figure 1. Vital Brazil, 1904. So Brazil's first achievement …