As DR Congo battles its 17th Ebola outbreak, neighbouring Rwanda has moved swiftly by reinforcing health screenings and strengthening surveillance at all points of entry. The response has been calm, professional, and proactive. In Kenya, a different story is unfolding. ALSO READ: France confirms first Ebola case The Kenya–United States partnership to establish an Ebola quarantine centre, designed primarily to monitor or temporarily accommodate people in transit from affected regions, has sparked significant public anxiety. Ordinary citizens asked reasonable questions; is the centre intended to keep Ebola out, or to spread it further into Kenya ? What if safety protocols fail? ALSO READ: Over 100 people recover from Ebola in DR Congo, Uganda Beneath these concerns lies a deeper and more important issue: public trust. In times of health emergencies, it is easy for discussions to become polarized. The purpose of this article is not to take sides or assign blame but to reflect on the fundamental pillars that determine the success of any epidemic-response facility. The first is effective science communication, which keeps communities informed rather than surprised and significantly reduces the fear. Second is biosecurity, which provides the safety measures needed to reassure both residents and healthcare workers that the facility will not increase the risk of disease transmission. ALSO READ: Seven things to know about the latest Ebola outbreak in DR Congo Science communication exists to bridge the gap between what experts know and what the public needs to understand. When that link is broken, facts are replaced by rumours and uncertainty. If scientific evidence is inaccessible, unclear, or poorly communicated, even well-intentioned public health interventions may face resistance and mistrust. Importance of biosecurity A quarantine facility serves an important public health and humanitarian function by safely monitoring or managing individuals who may have been exposed to a disease while reducing the likelihood of wider transmission. However, its presence can also create anxiety within the host community if people do not understand how it operates. Strict adherence to internationally recognised containment protocols is essential. Equally important is transparency. Health authorities should clearly explain the safety measures in place, allowing communities to understand how risks are managed and helping to prevent panic, stigma, and misinformation. The Kenya–United States partnership should not be interpreted as a reflection of the DR Congo's capacity to manage Ebola outbreaks. DR Congo has extensive experience responding to Ebola and has successfully contained multiple outbreaks over the years. Rather, the placement of specialised facilities is often guided by practical public health considerations, including regional stability, accessibility, and the need for a rapid and secure response. In areas affected by conflict, violence can disrupt essential health services and place both patients and frontline healthcare workers at considerable risk. International public health guidance also recommends situating response facilities within or close to affected regions whenever feasible. Doing so minimises the need for long-distance transport of potentially infectious individuals while supporting a timely and coordinated response. The bioethical dimension Beyond science communication and biosecurity lies an equally important consideration: bioethics. Public health interventions are most effective when they uphold the principles of transparency, fairness, beneficence (acting in best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for persons. Engaging the public openly and honestly is not merely a communication strategy—it is an ethical obligation that fosters trust and shared responsibility. Likewise, the selection of locations for specialised quarantine facilities should be guided by scientific evidence, equity, and the broader goal of protecting both local populations and regional public health. When people feel informed, respected, and included in the conversation, fear gives way to cooperation, strengthening the collective response to epidemic threats. What the science says Ebola is often life-threatening but it is not spread by breathing the same air, sharing public transport, or living in the same neighbourhood as an infected person. Transmission requires direct contact with the bodily fluids of a person who is already showing symptoms or with contaminated materials. A quarantine centre is not a public hospital open to unrestricted access. It is a highly specialised and controlled environment designed to interrupt chains of transmission while providing appropriate monitoring and care under strict safety protocols. History offers valuable lessons about public perceptions of new or unfamiliar risks. When electricity was first introduced into homes, many feared it would be fatal. Early developments in nuclear energy generated widespread anxiety about nearby communities. When HIV/AIDS emerged, misinformation and fear resulted in severe stigma, with many patients facing rejection by their own families. These examples remind us that fear often grows where understanding is limited. Building public trust through transparent communication, scientific evidence, rigorous biosecurity measures, and sound bioethical principles is therefore not merely an addition to epidemic preparedness—it is an essential component of it. The writer is a biochemist and biological engineer with experience in biosafety and biosecurity through working in academia and industry.
