> He took blood samples before she died and sent them to Belgium, where they had an electron microscope to try to identify the culprit. Scientists there and in the United States saw this was a new virus that caused hemorrhagic fever.<p>I think the whole thing is more complicated than the article makes it out to be. Clearly, Muyembe should get credit for the field epidemiology and recognizing that this could be something new. But can you say, as the article does, that someone “discovered” Ebola if they didn’t isolate the virus that causes it? Now you can argue the reason Muyembe couldn’t isolate the virus was because of colonialism and the Congolese government not being able to afford an expensive piece of equipment like an electron microscope. But would the Congolese have had electron microscopes but for Belgian colonialism?<p>I mean, there is a great story here even without the sensationalism. Man from Congo gets a PhD in Belgium, goes back home to help his country, but is held back by lack of local resources. What does Belgium owe in terms of equipping it’s former colony to help themselves? There is good material there.<p>As someone from a poor former colony myself, I find the whole thing somewhat patronizing. Bangladeshis rely on European and American geneticists to develop GMO rice to feed the country. But if the British hadn’t colonized us, it’s not like we would have developed that technology ourselves by now. But, on the flip side, we had math and civilization and indoor plumbing when the British were tribal people in the forest. No need to patronizingly give us credit for things we didn’t do.