By Lisa Pham, Bloomberg News

One llama is sprawled on the grass with its neck craned, basking in a patch of sunshine. Another stands on a dirt hill, ears flattened defiantly. A third rushes to greet visitors with a friendly nuzzle.

This isn’t a petting zoo. The furry beasts are in Belgium for work.

Scientists have discovered the potential of the animals’ antibodies to thwart multiple diseases, and now drug developers are collectively plowing billions of dollars into a field that may yield a fresh generation of life-changing medicines. The targets include some hard-to-treat conditions like cancer, nerve pain and a chronic skin ailment.

The llamas are a vital part of the experiment. In between dust baths and grazing, they get injections to trigger the production of their precious antibodies. The animals are some of the few to produce the tiny proteins, dubbed nanobodies, which scientists praise as easy to produce, manipulate and engineer.

“They have this Lego-like nature that you can just snap them together any way you want to, which is really unique,” says Mark Lappe, the chief executive of U.S. biotech Inhibrx Biosciences Inc. “If you try to do that with regular antibodies, it’s wildly complex.”

The field is burgeoning, albeit quietly for now. A Sanofi drug for a rare autoimmune blood disorder was the first medicine developed using llama antibodies to hit the market. AstraZeneca Plc recently released results for an experimental medicine to treat another autoimmune dysfunction that could be a potential blockbuster. And U.S. pharma giant Eli Lilly & Co. has partnered with Belgian biotech firm Confo Therapeutics to gain rights to a product exploring a new approach to pain management.

“I do think nanobodies will be a mainstay of many portfolios going forward,” says Michael Quigley, Sanofi’s chief scientific officer. “Sanofi from our perspective is leading the field.”

Inhibrx, for its part, is working on a therapeutic that can induce the death of some tumor cells while sparing healthy tissue — a progress over some existing cancer regimens. The shares more than doubled after a study showed patients with a rare type of bone cancer and no treatment options lived longer on the experimental drug without the disease progressing. The treatment is undergoing tests for several types of tumors.

The immune system of all mammals produces antibodies to thwart viral and bacterial attacks. Those made by llamas and other members of the camelid family can squeeze into tighter spots and better penetrate tissue than human ones, because they’re smaller and simpler. Some have been reported to cross the blood-brain barrier, eliciting hope for neurological diseases.

For the llamas, it’s not necessarily a bad job. They get injected with an antigen a couple of times and some weeks later, when their immune system has reacted, a vial of blood gets drawn that contains antibodies scientists will then tweak in the lab.

When they get older, they might go on to a second career in wildfire prevention or as livestock guardians. Some will get adopted, while others will simply retire.

“We have a llama pension plan,” Cedric Ververken, the chief executive officer of closely held Confo, said in an interview. “Once we’ve immunized them and have generated the antibodies, we want to make sure that the llama still has a happy life.”

A look behind the scenes confirms the animals at one large farm in Belgium live freely on a big, partly wooded terrain divided into multiple enclosures, each with a shed.

Related Articles

Boston University researchers say CTE is a cause of dementia

It’s freezing cold and you’ve lost power. Here’s what emergency doctors want you to do

U of M Regents back three-way deal with Fairview, physicians

Farmers now owe a lot more for health insurance

US life expectancy hit an all-time high in 2024, CDC says

The llamas live in herds with one dominant member. They are social animals and their mobile ears betray their state of mind, much like horses’: ears slanted forward, they’re curious, ears flattened back, they’re alert and somewhat suspicious. Unlike horses, they can kick sideways. One testy female, Jane, is known to spit at her carer if her daily serving of hay and pellets isn’t delivered fast enough.

The exact location of the farms is often kept secret, though the use of llamas in medical research is regulated.

The beasts also play a big role when it comes to branding. Inhibrx has a picture of the furry creatures in a brochure about its clinical pipeline. The investor presentation of Swiss company MoonLake Immunotherapeutics includes friendly-looking cartoon animals. Dutch-incorporated biotech Argenx SE, which deals with another type of llama antibody, also shows cartoon images on its website, including one wearing a beret to denote some of the animals they use live in the south of France.

“People love the llama,” Tim Van Hauwermeiren, Argenx’s chief executive officer, said in an interview. “They want to know all about the llama. Retail investors want a stuffed llama when they go home.”

Much of the nanobody activity is rooted in or near Belgium because the Free University of Brussels is where the antibodies were first discovered. The original findings related to dromedaries, but researchers soon found that other types of camels, llamas and alpacas shared the same properties, as did sharks.

The university, a large block of mismatched buildings on the outskirts of Brussels, has given birth to a number of the field’s first biotechs along with the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology. One example is Ablynx NV, which Sanofi bought in 2018 for €3.9 billion ($4.6 billion) after outbidding Novo Nordisk A/S. Lilly’s partner Confo is another.

The Brussels campus still houses work on nanobodies — a term trademarked by Ablynx. VIB Nanobody VHH Core, which engineers these camelid antibodies for pharma and biotech clients, works out of a set of barracks in a leafy corner of the campus. The group focuses mostly on treatments and diagnostics for cancer and inflammatory diseases, but it’s also investigating nanobodies for other applications, including a new type of contraceptive for the Gates Foundation.

“Everywhere you have a target an antibody can bind to, you can have a nanobody application,” says Steve Schoonooghe, one of VIB’s scientists. “Give us a target on a cancer cell and we can make a nanobody against it.” One goal, like at Inhibrx, is to tackle tumors while avoiding the damage wrought by chemotherapy.

For now, the nanobody world has yet to prove it can deliver a blockbuster. Sanofi’s Cablivi drug was a trailblazer, but after about seven years on the market for a blood-clotting disorder it has only garnered sales of €202 million in the first three quarters of last year. The French drugmaker has stopped research on five experimental nanobody drugs in recent years, although it’s still working on others. Two in particular are undergoing tests for ailments including asthma, diabetes and inflammatory bowel disease.

The field has endured setbacks as well. MoonLake’s market value crashed in September after a study of its experimental skin treatment prompted analysts to conclude it was no better than a rival medicine.

“It’s important to remember the overarching arc of drug discovery and development, and the maturation of any given platform, which takes time,” says Quigley, Sanofi’s chief scientific officer.

A big hit could help turbo-charge things, and AstraZeneca’s experimental rare-disease drug gefurulimab is billed as having that potential. The medicine could become a blockbuster in 2031 and is one of four nanobody medicines the UK drugmaker is developing.

“From my perspective, nanobodies represent a very important new tool in our toolkit,” said Seng Cheng, head of research and product development at Alexion, Astra’s rare-disease business. “We still haven’t tapped all the potential of what it can offer.”

The need to work with actual llamas could soon be made obsolete by artificial intelligence, but for now the animals still serve a purpose.

Inhibrx’s Lappe estimates the California-based biotech has immunized more than one hundred llamas located in rural San Diego County. Like some others, they lease the animals instead of owning them because “we’re drug developers — we’re not really farmers.”

—With assistance from Ashleigh Furlong.

©2026 Bloomberg News. Visit at bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

CARPENTER GAILLOT: French teachers Scott Dominic Carpenter and Nathalie Gaillot host a Very French Evening presented by American Association of Teachers of French. 6 p.m. Friday, Next Chapter Booksellers, 38 S. Snelling Ave., St. Paul.

JARRETT DAPIER: Celebrates “Wake Now in the Fire,” a graphic novel based on a true story about a group of Chicago teenagers working to overturn the school system-wide ban of “Persepolis” by Marjane Satrapi, in conversation with author Nicole Kronzer. Dapier is a Chicago-area librarian, recipient of an American Library Association award for his work exposing book censorship in Chicago’s public schools. Minnesotan Kronzer is the author of young adult novels “Unscripted” and “The Roof Over Our Heads.” 3 p.m. Saturday, Red Balloon Bookshop, 891 Grand Ave., St. Paul. Registration is appreciated at redballoonbookshop.com.

MARY LUCIA: Former Twin Cities DJ talks about “What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Weider and Harder to Relate To,” her memoir about the horrors of being stalked while living her very public life. 7 p.m. Tuesday, University Club, 420 Summit Ave., St. Paul.

MEMOIR PANEL: With Renee Gilmore (“Wayfinding’), Kelly Foster (“Beard: A Memoir of a Marriage’”), Tracy Youngblom (“Because We Must”) and Michael Kleber-Diggs (“My Weight In Water”). 7 p.m. Monday, Magers & Quinn, 3038 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls. Registration required: magersandquinn.com.

(Courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society Press)

JEROME P. POLING: Presents “American Birkebeiner: The Nation’s Greatest Ski Marathon.” 7 p.m. Tuesday, Magers & Quinn, 3038 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls.

ETHELENE WHITMIRE: Discusses “The Remarkable Life of Reed Peggram: The Man Who Stared Down World War II in the Name of Love,” the real-life story of a young man’s account of love in the time of war, by a celebrated historian of untold Black stories. In conversation with Lissa Jones. Presented in partnership with Black Market Reads. 7 p.m. Wednesday, Magers & Quinn, 3038 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls.

What else is going on

Minnesota Center for Book Arts hosts Press Play, its annual open house where participants of all ages experience letterpress printing and book arts through hands-on activities designed for beginners, experienced makers and families. Attendees can print a word or two with wood and bamboo type and make a few prints to take home. All materials are provided; no registration needed. Noon-3 p.m. Saturday, MCBA in the Open Book building, 1011 Washington Ave. S., Mpls.

Books for All St. Paul is Friends of the St. Paul Public Library’s new initiative to raise $62,000 this year to help offset rising costs and meet increasing demand for books, eBooks, movies, music and more. You can donate any amount: $30 buys a print book, $70 an eBook, $150 helps fill a create of books. There will be a virtual dedication wall on which donors can post why they are contributing and to whom (or what). All donations will go directly to the St. Paul Public Library. More information at thefriends.org.

Related Articles

Readers and writers: An eye-opening read of people who are homeless, plus fiction and history

Shelley Read’s debut novel ‘Go as a River’ becomes a global sensation

2026 Minnesota Book Awards finalists announced

38 novels and nonfiction books coming in 2026 to add to your TBR

Readers and writers: An eclectic wintry mix takes a tour of state and time

In case you missed it when it was released in early November, it’s a great week to catch up with “Nuremberg,” the Russell Crowe-Rami Malek two-hander written and directed by James Vanderbilt, about the international tribunal that put the Nazi high command on trial for war crimes. Based on the book “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist” by Jack El-Hai, the film examines the clinical relationship between Army psychiatrist Dr. Douglas Kelley (Malek) and German Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring (Crowe).

Vanderbilt’s approach is to dive into what made Göring such a fascinating narcissist and how he is able to draw people like Dr. Kelley into his orbit, while balancing their curious dynamic against the unprecedented case built by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon). It takes a more psychological approach than a legal one, but nevertheless impresses the importance of holding these kinds of people accountable for their hideous crimes against humanity. That is especially illustrated in the backstory of a young Army translator Howie (Leo Woodall), who is based on a real person as well. Rent or buy “Nuremberg” on all digital platforms.

“Nuremberg” is an example of how movies can be educative, cathartic and even inexplicably comforting at times. It can be painful to watch history repeating itself, day after day, but films like this are also a powerful reminder of the times in history when people have come together to do the right thing, uphold the law (and even set legal precedent), and deliver justice to victims, and more importantly, consequences to those who have committed monstrous acts against other human beings, by intent or merely following orders.

Vanderbilt’s “Nuremberg” takes its place next to Stanley Kramer’s 1961 epic legal drama “Judgment at Nuremberg,” starring Spencer Tracy. This is a fictionalized version of the Judges’ Trial in 1947, one of the 12 Nuremberg military tribunals. Tracy stars as Haywood, the chief judge who seeks to understand how the war crimes of the Holocaust crimes could have happened, especially defendant Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster), a legal scholar and jurist. At almost three hours, Kramer’s film, written by Abby Mann (who also wrote the book on which it was based) is hefty, but worth it. It earned 11 Oscar nominations and won two. Stream “Judgment at Nuremberg” on Prime Video, Kanopy, Tubi or rent it on other digital platforms.

While the Nuremberg trials put the Nazi high command on trial, there were still many, many Germans in the SS or who worked at concentration camps who were able to return to everyday life. As depicted in the 2014 German film “Labyrinth of Lies,” a young prosecutor named Johann Radmann (Alexander Fehling) decided to make it his mission to prosecute those who worked in service of the Nazi Final Solution even if they were just following orders. Taking place in the late 1950s, the film shows the long arm of justice and the sheer effort it takes to exert that power, especially when most would rather forget the trauma and sweep it under the rug. “Labyrinth of Lies” proves how important legal justice, truth and reconciliation are for a nation’s soul. Rent it on all digital platforms.

There are many, many other films that are both thrilling and illuminating on this topic, from a documentary about Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz, “Prosecuting Evil,” streaming on Kanopy, Tubi, the Roku Channel and more, to the 2006 docuseries “Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial,” streaming on BritBox. Also on BritBox, a 2000 film about the trials, “Nuremberg” starring Alec Baldwin and Brian Cox.

There’s also the direction of Nazi-hunting films, particularly the hunt for Adolf Eichmann, who was captured in Argentina in 1960 and put on trial in Israel, where he was hanged for his crimes in 1962. The excellent 2015 German thriller “The People vs. Fritz Bauer” follows the hunt for Eichmann by German Jewish prosecutor Fritz Bauer (Johann Radmann’s boss). Stream it on Kanopy or rent it on other digital platforms. It makes for a fascinating character study companion piece to the more straightforward historical political thriller “Operation Finale” (2018), about the Mossad capture of Eichmann in Argentina, starring Oscar Isaac and Ben Kingsley. Stream it on Netflix or rent it on other digital platforms.

It’s always the right time to remember history, and how it ends for some of its most nefarious villains. Sometimes stories about hard-fought justice are necessary and comforting reminders, which is what the art form of cinema can do best.

Related Articles

Movie review: Rachel McAdams, Dylan O’Brien shine in Sam Raimi’s gonzo blast ‘Send Help’

Moira Rose, Delia Deetz, Cookie Fleck and Kevin’s mom: Catherine O’Hara’s memorable roles

Journalist Don Lemon charged with federal civil rights crimes after covering anti-ICE church protest

See costumes from the Oscar-nominated wardrobe of ‘Sinners’ at the African American Museum in Philadelphia

These are the greatest Westerns of all time, according to the experts

I have a confession, shameful as it may be for someone who has spent decades studying retirement policy and advising individuals and institutions on how to save for and think about retirement: When I bought my apartment a few years ago, I raided my retirement account for the down payment.

Yes, I am well aware of the sacrosanct rule — never take money out of a retirement account before you turn 59.5 — but I did it anyway.

And you know what? It was among the best financial decisions I’ve ever made. I am not sure it’s right for everyone, but it should be an option, and President Donald Trump is right to want to make it available to all Americans.

My circumstances were exceptional. I bought my apartment during the pandemic, when people were allowed to take up to $100,000 out of their accounts without paying a penalty. If I’d had to pay the penalty, it would have been a bad decision (as it was, I incurred a large tax liability, which took three years to pay off).

The president’s plan would allow prospective homebuyers to take money out of their 401(k) accounts without penalty to make a down payment. It is worth noting you can currently take up to $10,000 without penalty if you are a first-time homebuyer. The details of the proposal are still being worked out, but presumably the limit would be higher and the option available to all homebuyers.

Does that mean everyone should spend their retirement money on a house? Not necessarily. For me, there were two main reasons I took advantage of the program, and neither had anything to do with the pandemic. One was the record low mortgage rates at the time. The other was my personal financial situation.

When I looked at my finances to figure out what I could afford, I was stunned that almost all my assets — more than 80% — were in retirement accounts, and most of those were in stocks. Maybe that’s because I tend to overprioritize saving for retirement, or because I’ve worked at places that offered a generous match, or because I wanted to use most of my disposable income to feed my shopping habit. But even I had to admit the amount of my portfolio in retirement accounts violated the life-cycle investing principles that I was trained in.

The goal is smooth, predictable consumption — including housing today, not just retirement income for tomorrow. It also occurred to me that I could stand to diversify a bit and have less in stocks and more in real estate (at least that’s how I explained my decision to the co-op board). If I took on homeownership, I also needed to be more liquid, which made reducing my retirement accounts the right choice.

From a strict financial standpoint, my decision is hard to defend: Stock prices have gone up more than real-estate prices in Manhattan since 2021. But rents have increased even more, and I’ve locked in my housing costs at a low mortgage rate and am building some equity. For me, and assuming apartment prices don’t completely crash, it was a good decision.

Again, and as grateful as I am to have had that choice, it does not make sense for everyone. In general, cleaning out your retirement account to make a leveraged bet on a single asset is not a wise financial move. It’s better to build up diversified savings before investing in real estate, and it’s important to have a healthy retirement balance.

About 55% of American households — a record high — have retirement accounts of some kind. On average, those accounts make up 27% of their net worth, a figure that falls to 22% for people under 45. Even though this group is relatively rich in retirement assets, they are often the ones struggling to afford a down payment.

Another concern is that too many people will have less money for retirement. A house is not just a place to live today; financially speaking, it tends to be people’s largest asset in retirement. Most retirees are overexposed to housing. Among retirement savers over age 65, home equity makes up 50% of their net worth; cash assets are only 28%. Absent better reverse mortgage options, this keeps retirees from spending a large share of their wealth, and means some are scrimping on their non-housing expenses.

There is also the possibility that this plan, by making more cash available, will increase demand for housing — and if new housing isn’t built, that will only push prices up further.

Policy issues aside, if this proposal becomes reality, the main issue facing most Americans will be whether they should use their retirement money to buy a house. I don’t mean to brag, but given my academic expertise and homebuying experience, I may be uniquely qualified to address this question. And my answer is this: It depends.

For me it was a good decision, because I needed diversification and could take advantage of unusually low mortgage rates. If buying a home leaves you overexposed to housing, under-saved for retirement, or taking on a mortgage you can’t afford, then it’s probably not a good option. But it would be nice to have a choice to make.

Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of “An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk.”

Related Articles

Juan Pablo Spinetto: How to navigate Venezuela’s murky moral waters

Catherine Thorbecke: Forget DeepSeek, dying alone is China’s latest tech obsession

Mary Ellen Klas: Republican governors are starting to understand the assignment

Sheldon Jacobson: Free speech needs a reset in America

Robert Pearl: Political and economic pressures set up a health care shift in 2026