Abstract
Introduction
Despite their potential relevance for outbreak understanding, epizootic reports associated with Ebola scarcely appear in biomedical literature. This study examines local accounts of animal deaths preceding the 2012 and the 2017 Ebola outbreaks in the north-eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Methods
The analysis is based on retrospective interviews conducted with scientists deployed during these two Ebola outbreaks, as well as testimonies collected in 2022 and 2023 from local residents, clinicians and veterinarians. It also draws on local archives to examine how reports of animal deaths were framed and understood in light of a new epidemic situation.
Results
Selective pressures that favour certain wild animal species, along with social practices such as bushmeat hunting, contribute to a narrowing of focus during outbreak investigations. This has contributed to overlooking some testimonies from marginalised local actors, which remain unpublished to this day. Animal death reports, however, need to be read in their social context. During the 2017 Ebola outbreak, local breeders framed their concerns about pig mortality into a question to be addressed by global health researchers—even though the deaths were not linked to Ebola but were likely caused by an unrelated pathogen, the African swine fever virus.
Conclusion
Beyond their biological relevance, epizootics can offer insight into the social contexts in which epidemics are identified. These epizootics can shed light on local experiences of diseases, illustrating local priorities and sense-making processes.
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable as no data sets were generated and/or analysed for this study.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2025-013586
Footnotes
Contributors: JV conceptualised the study, conducted the research and wrote the manuscript. JV is the guarantor.
Funding: The author received support from Sciences Po Medialab and IFAS (Institut Français d'Afrique du Sud) for fieldwork in the DRC in 2022 and 2023.
Competing interests: None declared.
Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Source:
Link: https://mh.bmj.com/content/early/2026/04/01/medhum-2025-013586
____
No comments:
Post a Comment