For years, bats have been blamed as the natural reservoir for Ebola virus. But a scientist working in Uganda now says the evidence is far from conclusive, and that fear of bats may be doing more harm than the virus itself.
The case against bats is not airtight
Dr. Brian Amman, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has spent years studying bats in Uganda. He told Mongabay that no study has ever definitively proven that bats transmit Ebola directly to humans. The link is based on circumstantial evidence: researchers have found antibodies and fragments of viral RNA in some bat species, but never a live, infectious Ebola virus. Amman argues that other animals, or even environmental sources, could play a role in spillover events.
Why local communities are caught in the middle
In Uganda, bats are often viewed with suspicion after outbreaks of Ebola and other diseases. Some communities have destroyed bat roosts or killed bats out of fear. This is a problem, Amman says, because bats provide essential ecosystem services. They pollinate plants, disperse seeds, and control insect populations. Losing bats could harm local agriculture and biodiversity. The scientist emphasized that the solution to preventing future outbreaks is not to eliminate bats, but to understand the complex ecology of the virus.
A call for science over panic
Amman and his colleagues are calling for more research, not more culling. They want to study how the virus moves through bat populations and what conditions might lead to spillover. They also stress the importance of educating communities about safe coexistence. In Uganda, where bats live in caves and buildings near human settlements, simple measures like avoiding direct contact with bat droppings or urine could reduce risk without destroying the animals.
The scientist's message is clear: fear is not a public health strategy. The real work lies in understanding the natural world, not in blaming it.
