This year mark the 100th anniversary of the deadliest event in U. S. history: the Spanish influenza epi-demic of 1918. Although science and technology have advanced tremendously over the past century, the pandemic peril remains; a recent exercise at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security showed that an epidemic of an influenza—like virus could kill 15 million Americans in a single year.

The medical community’s response to this danger is, understandably, focused on research and response—discovering new vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics and fighting ongoing epidemics, such as the current Ebola outbreak in Congo. But these urgent undertakings are not sufficient. If the World is to tack-le many factors that raise our risk of a devastating pandemic, the medical community may have to enter the atres of operation beyond the laboratory bench and the treatment unit and publicly engage with controversial issues that some observers would consider nonmedical. Indeed, I believe that only such efforts can save us from the social trends, political movements, and policy failures that are elevating our risk of a pandemic. There are three aspects in particular where the medical community’s intervention is urgently needed.

First is the rising tide of isolationism and xenophobia (排外) in many high-income nations, particularly the United States and European countries. The belief that isolating ourselves from the world can prevent the spread of diseases is irrational: we can build no wall high enough to keep out infectious diseases and disease-bearing vectors.

The second trend is the growing tide of antiscientific thinking and resistance to evidence-based medicine. In low-income countries, skepticism about vaccines is an everlasting challenge, but what we are seeing in the United States and Europe is something very different, and very dangerous. The growing refusal of parents in high-income countries to vaccinate their children is the tip of an iceberg that could sink us all in the event of an epidemic demanding rapid vaccine deployment and acceptance.

Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, medical professionals can step into the public arena to take on unpleasant and contentious political issues such as climate change and isolationism. Many members of the medical community prefer to avoid becoming involved in controversial issues that seem to be outside the scope of medical concerns, but their voices are needed to confront such issues.

What can be inferred from the last paragraph?