A telescope, called Gaia, is being designed by astronomers in Europe, and it couldn't be more different from Pan-STARRS, which is another telescope being designed. While Pan-STARRS will be looking for asteroids (小行星) and comets headed for Earth, Gaia will be looking at our entire galaxy (银河系).

    Gaia is designed to draw a map of the Milky Way, our home galaxy. Just as a map of your town gives you a picture of where things are located, Gaia's map of the galaxy will tell astronomers where the stars are. Over five years, Gaia will observe (观察) about a billion stars and other objects in our galaxy. Each object will be observed about 70 times.

    Gaia will be sent into space connected to a rocket. It contains two telescopes, each focused at a different angle (角度). These two telescopes act like Gaia's “eyes”. The reason why humans can see things in 3D is that we have two eyes focused on the same object, at slightly different angles. By using two telescopes like eyes, Gaia can produce the first 3D map of the positions of the stars it views.

    Gaia, which is to be sent into space, will be a powerful telescope. If you were to use it on Earth, for example, you could stand 600 miles away from your best friends and still get a clear picture of their hair.

    Gaia is one of more than a dozen telescopes being designed by scientists right now. The next generation of telescopes will reveal new parts of our universe that will seem surprising. The universe, with all its planets, stars and other strange objects, is a puzzle with pieces that we can see by using powerful telescopes.

    Organic food, grown without artificial chemicals, is increasingly popular nowadays. Consumers (消费者) have been willing to pay up to twice as much for goods with organic labels (标签). However, if you think paying a little more for organic food gets you a more nutritious and safer product, then you'd better save your money. A study led by researchers at Stanford University says that organic products aren't necessarily more nutritious, and they're no less likely to suffer from disease-causing bacteria, either.

    For their new study, Smith-Spangler and her colleagues conducted a review of two categories（种类）of research, including 17 studies that compared health outcomes between consumers of organic against traditional food products, and 223 studies that analyzed(分析) the nutritional content of the foods, including key vitamins, minerals and fats.

    While the researchers found little difference in nutritional content, they did find that organic fruit and vegetables were 20% less likely to have chemicals remaining on the surfaces. Neither organic nor traditional foods showed levels of chemicals high enough to go beyond food safety standards(标准). And both organic and traditional meats, such as chicken and pork, were equally likely to be harmed by bacteria at very low rates. The researchers did find that organic milk and chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a healthy fat also found in fish that can reduce the risk of heart disease. However, these nutritional differences were too small, and the researchers were unwilling to make much of them until further studies confirm the trends.

    Organic food is produced with fewer chemicals and more natural-growing practices, but that doesn't always translate into a more nutritious or healthier product. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that "whether you buy organic or not, finding the freshest foods available may have the biggest effect on taste." Fresh food is at least as good as anything marketed as organic.

    I always dreamed of studying abroad, to learn at a world﹣class university while further exploring the grounds on which these nations achieved new milestones of development with each passing day.

    To study abroad after my graduation, I could not stop seeking my dream. To take the first step, I did some brainstorming and explored opportunities on the Internet and finally decided to go for China. There were a number of reasons behind it﹣its advanced education system and thousands of centuries of rich culture inspired me to study there. The primary one was my curiosity how a nation has left many nations behind in a short time at its fast pace of development.

    So just like that, I applied, along with some of my friends, for a master's degree program at Communication University of China. I was the only one who got selected in the said program and in addition, the Chinese Scholarship Council sponsored all of my expenses. This good news was welcomed by my family.

    This is my seventh month in Beijing. In my experience so far, one thing that appeared to be missing was the internship（实习） which I tried to find because I want to work here after completion of my studies. After some struggles I was lucky enough to get the opportunity to work as an intern with the Center for China and Globalization（CCG）. It's very exciting to work on their team as a researcher. Now I can proudly say that my decision to choose China as a study destination was the best decision I have ever made.

    Argument for awards

    It's always exciting every year in October when the Nobel Prizes are announced. We get to witness the acknowledgement (表彰) of some of humankind's greatest minds in six fields – literature (文学), medicine, physics, chemistry, economics and activism for peace.

    This year, however, part of the excitement will be taken away, since there won't be a Nobel Prize in literature due to the fact that the Swedish Academy – the institution (机构) that awards the prize – was involved in a sexual harassment scandal.

People worry that a scandal like this will affect the reputation of the Nobel Prizes. But at the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether we really need these awards after all.

    According to Jana Gallus, an economist from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, one of the reasons that people give out awards is to establish a legacy (遗产). In the case of the Nobel Prizes, they encourage people to achieve more by acknowledging the hard work of top figures in different fields.

    Awards may also help establish standards of what's considered high quality. For example, if you're having a hard time deciding which movie to watch, one of them having an Oscar under its belt will probably help you to make your mind up. And by reading the books that have won The Man Booker Prize or listening to songs that have been awarded a Grammy, you get an idea about what “great” literature and music look and sound like – at least in the eyes of judging panels (评审团).

    Sure, awards can backfire. There was the OscarsSoWhite movement in 2015 and 2016, when it turned out that all 20 actors nominated (提名) for two years in a row were white. There was also the GrammysSoMale movement in January, when Alessia Cara was the only woman to win a solo Grammy this year. But still, it was these incidents that brought the problems of racism (种族歧视) and gender (性别) inequality into the public eye once more. And with influential voices – like that of black actor Will Smith, who refused to attend the Oscars ceremony – the problems became more likely to be noticed and dealt with instead of being buried silently, again.

    Maybe these awards do matter, and we do need them – just not while they are under the shadow of a sexual harassment scandal.

    So when it comes to this year's Nobel Prize in Literature, I'm going to have to say: "No, thanks."

    BY CHEN XUE, 21ST CENTURY TEENS STAFF

    Our society is generally becoming one of giant enterprises directed by a bureaucratic management in which man becomes a small, well-oiled cog in the machinery. The oiling is done with higher wages, Nell-ventilated factories and piped music, and by psychologists and "human-relations" experts; yet all this oiling does not alter the fact that man has become powerless, that he is bored with it. In fact, the blue and the white-collar workers have become economic puppets who dance to the tune of automated machines and bureaucratic management.

    The worker and employee are anxious, not only because they might find themselves out of a job; they are anxious also because they are unable to acquire any real satisfaction of interesting life. They live and die without ever having confronted the fundamental realities of human existence as emotionally and intellectually independent and productive human beings.

    Those higher up on the social ladder are no less anxious. Their lives are no less empty than those of their subordinates. They are even more insecure in some respects. They are in a highly competitive race. To be promoted or to fall behind is not a matter of salary but even more a matter of self-respect. When they apply for their first job, they are tested for intelligence as well as for the right mixture of obedience and independence. From the moment on they are tested again and again—by the psychologists, for whom testing is a big business, and by their superiors, who judge their behavior, sociability, capacity to get along, etc. This constant need to prove that one is as good as or better than one's fellow competitor creates constant anxiety and stress, the very causes of unhappiness and illness.

    Am I suggesting that we should return to the preindustrial mode of production or to nineteenth-century "free enterprise" capitalism? Certainly not. Problems are never solved by returning to a stage which one has already outgrown. I suggest transforming our social system form a bureaucratically managed industrialism in which maximal production and consumption ends in a humanist industrialism in which man and full development of his potentialities – those of all love and of reason—are the aims of social arrangements. Production and consumption should serve only as means to this end, and should be prevented from ruling man.