在线英语听力室_免费在线英语听力学习网站

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That’s more than a folksy aphorism¹ when it comes to infectious diseases. Because according to a report in the Proceedings² of the Royal Society, it’s more cost effective to reduce the cases of a disease in hard-hit areas than to struggle to find a cure.

The trick, say the scientists, is identifying the populations most at risk. To figure out where disease-prevention dollars would be best spent, the scientists crunched³ the numbers. They looked at the diversity of disease-causing organisms and at the number of victims in regions all around the world. And they examined a variety of variables, from climate conditions to the money spent on health care.

Their finding, perhaps not surprisingly, is that the places where infections are most rampant⁴ are those with the largest populations and the worst disease-control measures. The good news is: the data show that efforts to control these scourges⁵ do work. So where eradication⁶ has failed, prevention can help.

The scientists note that reducing illness in heavily populated, poor areas also lowers the chance of a disease spreading to uninfected regions. Just as it’s in your best interest to keep your neighbor’s house from going up in flames.

Thanks for the minute for Scientific American's 60-Second Science. I'm Karen Hopkin.