We greatly appreciate Mongabay for its handling of the Nipah virus outbreak in Kerala, India. Its story, “Nipah infection in Kerala: Don’t blame the bats alone; improve public health,” appeared on May 30, authored by Haritha John and Gopikrishna Warrier. Needless alarm was avoided by balanced reporting. As so often is the case, the rarest threats make the biggest news. Fortunately, in this instance, the news was accurate, so did not cause needless panic.
Fruit-eating bats appear to be the natural reservoir for this virus. However, Nipah is easily avoidable, as noted in the Mongabay article. Human infections originate from drinking unpasteurized palm juice or from contact with pigs who have eaten contaminated fruit. The reported outbreak did kill 14 people, mostly from person-to-person transmission within a family and their immediate contacts. However, put in perspective, it was hardly grounds for the kind of panic too often created by needlessly scary speculation of potential pandemics killing millions. Thanks to level-headed health officials and media coverage, eradication of ecologically and economically essential bats was avoided.
Bats can indeed transmit deadly diseases like rabies and Nipah to humans, though transmission is exceedingly rare and easily avoided. In the case of Ebola, bats have been too easily assumed guilty. A wide variety have been tested at outbreak locations. But, “Ebolavirus has yet to be isolated from bats, and no direct evidence links bats to Ebolavirus infection in humans.” (Spengler et al. 2016). Virologists still know “nothing about where it comes from and how it causes outbreaks.” (Kupferschmidt 2017).
Early Ebola outbreaks were traced to human consumption of infected chimpanzees, gorillas and duikers (Rouquet et al. 2005), though these animals were believed to be too susceptible to serve as reservoirs (Wittmann et al. 2007).
Nevertheless, subsequent research revealed Ebola antibodies in 10 percent of gorillas (Reed et al. 2014) and in 18.7 percent of pygmies (Mulangu et al. 2016), demonstrating that exposure is not as uniformly lethal in either great apes or humans as previously believed. Nancy Sullivan, a viral immunologist with the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health, notes that “there is little evidentiary data to document widespread death of apes from Ebola” (Pedris 2017). These discoveries provide potential breakthroughs in the hunt for reservoirs.
The preponderance of evidence now points to sources other than bats (Leendertz 2016). There are four African species of Ebola: Sudan, Zaire, Bundibugyo, and Tai Forest Ebola. The geographical distributions are along separate river basins, and this is inconsistent with a highly mobile source, such as bats. Bats easily cross river basins. Experimentally infected bats can survive infection, as often cited, but they also show no evidence of viral shedding and are unlikely transmitters (Paweska et al. 2016).
Current claims that bats are the most likely sources of Ebola appear to have gained momentum from careless reporting of the index case for the 2013-2014 outbreak. The first team to investigate speculated a fruit bat origin, despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, as noted by a second team who also found no evidence of Ebola in a large sample of both fruit and insect-eating bats, but still speculated an insect-eating bat origin, whereupon the roost was burned with the bats inside (Saez et al. 2015).
It now seems likely that the disproportionate epidemiological focus on bats may have delayed much needed progress (Tuttle 2017) while doing great harm to the conservation of bats (Lopez-Baucells et al. 2018). Bats are economically and ecologically invaluable, but they also rank among our planet’s most endangered wildlife (Voigt and Kingston 2015). It’s time to halt the bias. People don’t tolerate animals they fear, and we need to know where Ebola is coming from.
Our combined voices can make a difference. Choose any or all means of contact to reach out to the staff at Reuters News and politely share your opinion in your own words. Editors do take notice. Remember, your response can be very simple such as, “I don’t appreciate premature speculation that creates needless fear of bats.” Editors just need to know you like or dislike an article in order for you to have impact. It’s numbers that count. Bats need all of you!
Lopez-Baucells, A., Rocha, R. and A. Fernandez-Llamazares. 2018. When bats go viral: negative framings in virological research imperil bat conservation. Mammal Review 48(1): 62-66.
Mulangu, S., M. Borchert, J. Paweska, A. Tshomba, A. Afounde, A Kulidri, R. Swanepoel, J.J. Muyembe-Tamfum, and P. Van der Stuyft. 2016. High prevalence of IgG antibodies to Ebola virus in the Efe pygmy population in the Watsa region, Democratic Republic of the Congo. BMC Infec. Dis. June 10;16;263
Paweska, J.T., N. Storm, A.A. Grobbelaar, W. Markotter, A. Kemp, and P.J. van Vuren. 2016. Experimental inoculation of Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) with Ebola virus. Viruses 8(2):29.
Pedris, L. 2017. Going viral: How advancements in Ebola disease detection in wild apes can help to prevent dangerous outbreaks. Mongabay, May 4.
Reed, P.E., S Mulangu, K.N. Cameron, A.U. Ondzie, D. Joly, M. Bermejo, P. Rouquet, G. Fabozzi, M. Bailey, Z. Shen, B.F. Kele, B. Hahn, W.B. Karesh, and N.J. Sullivan. 2014. A new approach for monitoring Ebolavirus in wild great apes. PLOS, Sept. 18, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003143.
Rouquet, P. J-M. Froment, M. Bermejo, A. Kilbourn, W. Karesh, P. Reed, B. Kumulunqui, P. Yaba, A. Delicat, P.E. Rollin, and E.M. Leroy. 2005. Wild animal mortality monitoring in human Ebola outbreaks, Gabon and Republic of Congo, 2001-2003. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11(2):283-290.
Saez, A.M., S. Weiss, K. Nowak, V. Lapeyre, F. Zimmermann, A. Dux, H.S. Kuhl, M. Kaba, S. Regnaut, K. Merkel, A. Sachse, U. Theisen, L. Villanyi, C. Boesch, P.W. Dabrowski, A. Radonic, A. Nitsche, S.A. J. Leendertz, S. Petterson, S. Becker, V. Krahling, E.Couacy-Hymann, C. Akoua-Koffi, N. Weber, L. Schaade, J. Fahr, M. Borchert, J.F. Gogarten, S. Calvignac-Spencer, and F.A. Leendertz. 2015. Investigating the zoonotic origin of the West African Ebola epidemic.
Tuttle, M.D. 2017. Give bats a break. Issues in Science and Technology. Spring edition.
Voigt, C.C. and T. Kingston (eds). 2016. Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of bats in a changing world. DOI 10,1007/978-3-319-25220-9_1.
This powerful article in Southeast Asia Globe, by Claire Baker-Munton, on the value of artificial bat roosts in Southeast Asia deserves much praise. With the help of Merlin’s photos, this article clearly promotes a better understanding of bats and their values. At a time when so many media headlines are attempting to grab readership by speculating potential linkage of bats to scary diseases, positive stories like this are crucial. In reality, as Claire points out, Cambodians have found bats to be highly valued neighbors.
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out with your praise and encouragement on behalf of bats.
The November 23, 2017 issue of THE CONVERSATION lures readers with an important sounding, bat-friendly title, “Can bats help humans survive the next pandemic?” However, two-thirds of the article is devoted to promoting fear instead of progress and is based on questionable sources. This is particularly disturbing given the publication’s stated objective—“Fight for Truth in Journalism.”
This story is a simple repeat of close to a decade of often exaggerated speculation attempting to link viruses found in bats to transmission of scary but relatively rare ones like SARS and MERS to humans. Documented transmission of any disease from bats to humans remains exceedingly rare. And no one has successfully shown transmission of SARS or MERS from bats to other mammals. Dromedary camels are now well known to have been the source of MERS in humans for decades, likely longer.
This story further repeats the poorly founded claim that bat species harbor more coronaviruses than any other group of mammals, assuming without validation, that this makes them uniquely dangerous. The claim is based on a study of fewer than half of the world’s bat families, presumably those that are the largest, most widespread and diverse, the ones most likely to harbor the highest viral diversity. These were then inappropriately assumed to be representative of the remainder that were less diverse and widely distributed as well as less colonial.
Sampled species were not reported, nor was their roosting or feeding behavior. Since the large majority of viral fragments detected came from feces, many could have come from arthropod carriers eaten by bats. This could falsely lead to the conclusion that bat vector controllers instead serve as reservoirs. Despite such biases, these results are now reported as documented facts.
One can only wonder how so many biases can be so consistently overlooked, despite historical evidence that huge bat colonies, even in cities, make safe and highly beneficial neighbors. Unfortunately, scaring us about bats has proven lucrative in gaining large research grants for projects of questionable value. It also seriously threatens some of our planet’s most endangered and valuable animals. Finally, this story provides no new discoveries of how bats might help prevent pandemics, as its title implies. Bats are indeed, largely immune to major human threats, such as cancer and arthritis, and when research objectives are revised, may provide a goldmine of useful discovery.
My comments can be seen at the end of THE CONVERSATION article. We encourage you to do the same in your own words by following the directions below. Also, we encourage you to freely contact the editors and authors of any similarly negative articles you find.
Remember, your response can be very simple such as, “I don’t appreciate attempts to create needless fear of bats.” Editors just need to know you like or dislike an article in order for you to have impact. It’s numbers that count. Bats need all of you!
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out to the staff at THE CONVERSATION and share your opinion about this unfair bias against bats in your own words.
Contact the editors. Be sure to include the article and author information.
This summer saw the worst avalanche of grossly exaggerated disease speculation ever launched against bats. While seemingly countless publications world-wide needlessly frightened millions of readers, Mongabay journalist, John Cannon, investigated and bravely countered the tide in his article, “Bats and viruses: Beating back a bad reputation,” published August 29.
Mongabay is one of the world’s leading environmental websites. It reaches 28 million readers in nine languages annually, making its defense of bats especially helpful at a time when bats are facing so much scary misinformation. We’ve listed actions you can take to share your thanks at the end of this post.
A Terrifying Time for Bats By Merlin Tuttle
The past month has seen a virtual explosion of premature speculation presented as though it were now proven fact, much of it traceable to a single article titled, “Bats are global reservoir for deadly coronaviruses,” that appeared in the June 14, 2017 issue of Nature. We’ve already issued a Bat Flash alert responding to this article, and to predecessors, all apparently part of a single cleverly planned campaign.
Sensational speculation has become widely cited as fact1, with spin-off damage that will be exceedingly difficult to reverse. All who truly care about bats have cause to be deeply concerned.
Due to scary speculation attempting to link the SARS outbreak of 2002 to bats, bats have recently become central in the search for viruses2. Thus, rapid advances in viral detection alone may have caused major bias. Also, the number of viruses found in bats is not necessarily indicative of risk.2 Many viruses are innocuous or even beneficial,3 including some that are closely related to deadly ones.4 Finally, the paper in question is based on models, and models are notorious for mistaken conclusions, regardless of the amount of data analyzed.5
A far more meaningful analysis should have considered the historic rarity of viral spillover from bats to humans. Many media stories now claim bats to be the primary source of so-called “emerging infectious diseases” like Ebola, though most of these speculations remain unproven.6- 7
Proponents of such speculation still cannot explain why hundreds of bat biologists, millions of people who eat bats, and the millions more who share cities with huge bat colonies are no less healthy than others. They can’t explain why bats artificially infected with Ebola haven’t become contagious or why virologists haven’t even been able to find live virus in the thousands of bats examined. Certainly, like all other mammals, bats must be capable of harboring at least a few dangerous viruses. Nevertheless, bats still have one of our planet’s finest records of living safely with humans.1
Once again, bats are plagued with a rash of sensational bat-attack and bat-disease stories, promoted by clever, but unscrupulous persons who know better. The motivation remains the same—greedy competition for public health funding. As noted by Mexico’s leading bat biologist and conservationist, Dr. Rodrigo Medellin, “unsupported statements and partial truths have been cleverly interwoven to present a picture that bats are the most dangerous, filthy, pathogen-harboring organisms on earth.” So-called virus hunters are linking already feared bats with deadly, but rare diseases, misleading governments to invest billions of dollars in projects of questionable value in saving human lives (USCDC 2015).
The current article in The Independent, is typical, first the scary headline that leaves a lasting impression on readers, despite later qualifiers, most of which go unread. The subtitle says, “Diseases in bats have been around for a long time and historically have not been a problem. Now, there is cause for concern.”
Those promoting this international campaign of fear are clever wordsmithers. They know just enough about bats and diseases to almost imperceptibly distort the truth, scaring people about potential, but unlikely events. Extremely low risks are made to seem imminent and possibly disastrous. And since neither bats nor viruses are well understood, they are ideal victims for such manipulation.
The article claims bats have been attacking humans in increasing numbers because their natural habitats are being destroyed through deforestation. This is a commonly propagated myth in recent scare stories. It appears to be an attempt to look like the writer isn’t anti-bat, but is simply attempting to be helpful. Bats nearly everywhere are in decline, and a growing proportion of the human population now lives in cities where there is less, rather than more likelihood of contact with bats. A veterinary college professor is quoted as saying that expanding cities are causing increasing contact—just the opposite of reality. The professor sounds like a reliable source, though he likely has no personal experience with bats.
It is reported that more than 40 people were bitten by vampires in just three months, with one death from rabies. But that’s in all of northeastern Brazil. This is likely one of the rarest causes of mortality that could have been reported for such a large area. Far more deaths likely occurred from bicycle accidents or dog attacks, though no one is likely to advocate ridding the area of bicycles or dogs!
The story verifies our worst concerns, reporting that authorities are “trying to control the bats, poisoning them and removing their roosting sites.” Highly beneficial species form the largest, most conspicuous colonies so they are the ones most easily found, becoming innocent victims of mass killing. In the current article, a doctor stresses that “Brazilian authorities must take the threat seriously.” And an accompanying photo shows an insect-eating bat, looking exceptionally vicious because it is snarling in self-defense.
Not until the next to last paragraph is it admitted that “Bats in the UK do not pose a threat to the human population.” This nearly universally repeated approach gives authors a disclaimer, but it appears deliberately located where it is least likely to be noticed.
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out and share your opinion in your own words.
Send a Contact Form to The Independent. Be sure to include the article and author information.
Virologists are still doggedly pursuing the search for an Ebola reservoir in bats, as reported in the storytitled Hunting for Ebola among the Bats of the Congo in the June 1, 2017 issue of Science (Kupferschmudt 2017), apparently attempting to ignore mounting evidence pointing elsewhere. The record of unsubstantiated speculation, attributing Ebola to bats is long and becoming an embarrassment to good science.
By 2014, researchers had discovered that 10% of gorillas in Central Africa have antibodies to Ebola, demonstrating that exposure or infection is not uniformly lethal as previously reported (Reed et al. 2014). Because great apes were said to be highly susceptible, virologists had insisted they couldn’t serve as reservoirs. Instead they pointed to bats.
Over the past decade a growing number of peer-reviewed research publications have reported likely-to-be-unsustainable bat kills at wind turbines, also reporting that kills could be reduced by 44-90% by slightly delaying turbine cut-in speeds (the wind speeds at which turbines are activated to begin rotating to produce energy) during the bats’ fall migration.
The best available calculations indicate that by implementing these changes, annual power output would be reduced by less than 1%. Yet only a few companies have acted on even these economically feasible recommendations, despite repeated warnings that whole species could be threatened with extinction without prompt action. Keim raises the obvious question, “how people already know so much about solving the problem, yet do so little.” The answer seems obvious—Too many people still don’t know, and too many of us who do have remained silent for too long.
Please take a moment to thank author, Brandon Keim, and the editorial staff at Anthropocene for reminding readers that alarming and growing numbers of ecologically essential bats are being killed needlessly by carelessly operated wind turbines.
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out and send thanks in your own words.
Send a Contact Form to Anthropocene Magazine. Be sure to include the article, author and editors by name when you thank them for their much needed reporting on bats.
Sensational National Public Radio Story Threatens Bats By Merlin Tuttle
Unfortunately, the normally objective and reliable NPR, in its broadcast interview titled, Why Killer Viruses Are On The Rise, has joined in spreading irresponsibly sensational fear of bats. The interview with a “virus hunter” is set in a Bornean rainforest. In the preamble, the announcer notes that, “It’s where deadly viruses hide out, waiting their chance to leap into a person and then spread around the world.”
At a time when bats and rainforests are both in alarming decline, and in desperate need of protection, the program goes on to portray them in the scariest of terms. The reporter notes that rainforests “have lots of crazy animals” that “have lots of crazy viruses” and explains that what the virus hunter “really wants is to catch a bat.”
When the first bat is caught it is described as cute, but the reporter quickly points out that, “bats are arguably one of the most dangerous animals in the world. They triggered the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the pandemic of killer pneumonia back in 2003, that was called SARS, and they’re behind one of the viruses scientists think could cause the next big one, Nipah.” This is unproven speculation reported as fact. But it gets even worse.
Merlin Tuttle’s Bat Conservation is the most recent contribution by Merlin Tuttle to the world of bats. With over 50 years of in-depth knowledge and experience Merlin Tuttle, renowned bat expert, educator and wildlife photographer founded MTBC with one true goal in mind; teaching the world to understand and appreciate the vital contributions bats make to human beings and the world we live in.