Does "light on scientific rigor" mean "(the anecdote) needs scientific scrutiny"?

Context:

Kuhn said that though much has been written during the recent outbreak, most of the information is not useful scientifically, since it’s heavy on anecdote and light on scientific rigor. For example, he said, though fruit bats have been fingered as a likely animal reservoir for the disease, that contention is based on the fact that some bats had antibodies for it, which could simply mean that they had been exposed to it, not that they serve as a natural reservoir.