Here’s a shocking truth: not all bats are ticking time bombs of deadly viruses, despite what you might have heard. A groundbreaking study published in Communications Biology flips the script on our understanding of bats and their role in viral transmission. Led by researchers at the University of Oklahoma, this research reveals that only specific groups of bat species, not the entire order, are more likely to carry viruses with high epidemic potential. But here’s where it gets controversial: could our fear of bats be rooted in misinformation, and are we overlooking their critical role in ecosystems? Let’s dive in.
Wildlife is often the source of high-consequence viruses—pathogens that can cause severe illness, death, and widespread transmission. Bats, in particular, have been labeled as carriers of notorious viruses like SARS-like coronaviruses, Marburg, Hendra, and Nipah. But this is the part most people miss: bats are also ecological superheroes. In Oklahoma, Mexican free-tailed bats devour agricultural pests, protecting crops, while fruit bats act as vital pollinators. As Caroline Cummings, the study’s lead author, puts it, ‘If we lost bats, agricultural production and economies would suffer.’ So, how do we balance their benefits with the risks they pose?
Using advanced machine learning, Cummings and her team identified specific bat species that are more likely to host highly virulent and transmissible viruses. Surprisingly, these traits often cluster among closely related species. ‘It’s not that all bats carry all dangerous viruses,’ Cummings explains. ‘Only specific bats have co-evolved with specific viruses, allowing them to coexist without getting sick.’ This nuance is a game-changer for viral surveillance and conservation efforts.
With infectious diseases on the rise in humans, predicting which wildlife species harbor viruses is more critical than ever. Viral surveillance is typically resource-intensive, but this study narrows the focus, allowing researchers to target high-risk bat groups. Cummings also mapped how these high-risk bats overlap with areas of habitat disruption and human encroachment—a double-edged sword. Such disruptions increase bat-to-human virus transmission by boosting interspecies contact and stressing bats, potentially weakening their immune systems and increasing viral shedding.
Here’s the silver lining: healthy, undisturbed bat colonies maintain better immunological balance, naturally keeping viruses in check. Conservation efforts to protect bat habitats could reduce spillover risks while preserving their ecosystem services. ‘This work adds much-needed nuance to discussions about bats and zoonotic risk,’ says Dr. Daniel Becker, the study’s senior author. ‘By pinpointing which bat species carry dangerous viruses and where they overlap with human impacts, we can minimize harmful interactions.’
But here’s a thought-provoking question: Could studying the immune systems of these high-risk bats lead to breakthroughs in medical therapeutics? Their unique adaptations to coexist with deadly viruses might hold the key to future treatments. This study not only challenges our assumptions but also opens doors to innovative research.
What do you think? Are we unfairly demonizing bats, or is caution justified? Share your thoughts in the comments!
For more details, check out the full study: Caroline A. Cummings et al, Viral epidemic potential is not uniformly distributed across the bat phylogeny, Communications Biology (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s42003-025-08929-5.
