Dear Editor,

In May 2026, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) declared the ongoing Ebola virus outbreak caused by the Bundibugyo species in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda a public health emergency of international concern and a public health emergency of continental security, respectively [1, 2]. These declarations are intended to mobilise global attention, trigger international support and funding, encourage timely recommendations for trade and travel, and strengthen surveillance and response measures.

During such periods, the public frequently seeks clarification and opinions from experts. In my experience as an infectious disease epidemiologist, the name “Bundibugyo”, which is actually a district in Uganda where the virus species was first identified, generated fear and panic during the first days of the outbreak, with many people questioning whether Bundibugyo District is affected and should be avoided, or whether travel to Uganda should be restricted altogether [3]. Such perceptions may adversely affect tourism, travel, trade, and local economies, and contribute to the social exclusion of some communities, as observed in previous outbreaks [4]. Bundibugyo is a major tourist destination, and with the summer months approaching, this could pose a danger to tourism in Uganda following travel notices released by, for example, the United States government. Consequently, these implications may further complicate outbreak preparedness and response due to the sensitivity they create.

Historically, ebolavirus species were named after geographical locations where they were first identified, a convention that reflected prevailing virological naming practices at the time [5]. However, advances in understanding the social consequences of disease naming have led to greater emphasis on nomenclature that preserves scientific precision [6]. A previous article by Olupot-Olupot and colleagues called for a stigma-free and scientifically precise Ebola virus nomenclature, highlighting the need to minimise the potential harm associated with disease names [7]. They argued that the nomenclature of several ebolavirus species, including Zaire ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, and Bundibugyo ebolavirus, may unintentionally create negative perceptions because these names are directly linked to geographic locations. This call needs to be reignited to establish proper nomenclature for these viruses, or at the very least to ensure alignment during outbreaks.

WHO’s best practices for naming infectious diseases discourage the use of geographic references and terminology that may promote discrimination or segregation [6]. Similar principles informed the transition from Mpox during the global outbreak in 2022 [8]. In light of these considerations, scientists, alongside affected communities, public health institutions such as WHO and Africa CDC, and international taxonomy bodies such as the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, should initiate and/or be involved in renewed dialogue and evidence-based consultations to help align Ebola virus nomenclature with contemporary principles of equity and non-stigmatising communication. While any future changes would require consideration of implications for surveillance systems, laboratory reporting, and international classification frameworks, these challenges should not discourage evidence-informed discussion of whether current nomenclature remains fit for purpose.