A billionaire has recently made one of the biggest charitable（慈善的）donations to a university in China's history. Chen Tianqiao donated $115 million to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) to help advanced brain research. The donation will be spent deepening the understanding of how the brain works. Chen has been interested in brain research, believing it can shape the industries such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality. However, this huge donation has caused heated discussions among Chinese scholars and internet users alike.

    Many criticized him for choosing to give money to a foreign university rather than home institutes for brain research, which are developing fast and are on track to catch up with the US in just a few years. Rao Yi, a biologist at Peking University, even said the donation was a typical mistake.

    Others, however, support his choice. They believe Caltech is a more reasonable choice compared with Chinese research institutions. Caltech has a long history and has taken a leading position in biology, and therefore it produces more efficient results. In addition, the results of the research benefit not only the American people, but also the rest of the world.

    A similar controversial case started two years ago when Pan Shiyi, chairman of SOHO China, donated $15 million to Harvard University to help disadvantaged Chinese students.

    Many believe that China is still behind in the management and use of donated money, and that as a result, Chinese charity donators are looking abroad. In comparison, Western countries like the US, which have a long history of donating money, have well-developed systems that use money efficiently. They can also provide full access for donors who want to track the use of the money. To get more donations, Chinese universities should be braver and more honest. They need self-reflection, rather than envy.

    Do you find it difficult to put down your mobile phone?

    If yes, you're not alone. These days, many people suffer from the stress of FOMO (fear of missing out). They reach of their mobile phones when they wake up in the morning, and for the rest of the day, they constantly check their social media apps for the latest updates.

    Despite the convenience smart phones bring, many people struggle with their digital habits. This is why Google introduced an app called Dashboard for Android operating system. This new app includes well-being functions that aim to help users manage the time they spend on their digital devices.

    It all starts with a bird's-eye view. Dashboard allows users to look at all the details of their phone habits. For example, a user can see how many times they're unlocked their phone and how many times they're checked their social media apps, as well as how much time they spend on each app every day.

    Once the users see this information, they'll be able to make some changes. With the App Timer function, users can set a time limit for how long they can use each app for every day.

    But even if users become more mindful of their usage, they're still likely to be drawn in by notification（通知）. Such feature automatically（自动地）silences incoming calls and notifications when a user puts their phone face down.

    If people truly want to make full use of their free time instead of losing hours using their smart phones, these new functions are just one way of doing that.

    The easiest answer would be just to use your willpower.

    My grandfather grew up in war-torn Europe. When German soldiers occupied his hometown, the thriving city of Tarow, Poland, he refused to obey them and eventually joined the Soviet army to fight for his country's freedom. “Stand straight, stand tall,” he told himself.

    After the war, in 1947, he boarded a boat for Manhattan. He was hungry and suffering from seasickness. All alone in a new country, he was frightened about his future. Still, he marched head-on into the hustle of the streets of New York. Soon he met other European immigrants, each of them trying to find his or her own way. If they could do it, why couldn't he? “Stand straight, stand tall,” he would remind himself.

    Thanks to the help of a loyal and trusting friend, my grandfather gained a jewelry booth on Canal Street, New York City. He once told me how nervous he was on that first day of work. He was not only trying to learn this tough new business, but also a new language.

    To his surprise, the men in neighboring booths－who could have taken advantage of him－offered their help and advice. Within months, my grandfather was commanding his spot behind the counter, selling diamonds and cultured pearls as if he'd been doing it his whole life.

    Stand straight and stand tall.

    In later years, my grandfather would take both my mother and her sister down the aisle at their weddings. As he stood with each of them, he thought about their new beginnings, and of the adventures and journeys they would experience together. He also thought about the children who would one day carry on his family name.

    I am so proud to be one of those children. Listening to my grandfather's remarkable experiences has changed the way I view my own life.

    The medical world is gradually realizing that the quality of the environment in hospitals may play an important role in helping patients to get better.

    As part of nationwide effort in Britain to bring art out of the museum and into public places, some of the country's best artists have been called in to change older hospitals and to soften the hard edges of modern buildings.

    Of the 2,500 national health service hospitals in Britain, almost 100 now have very valuable collections of present art in passages (走廊), waiting areas and treatment rooms.

    These recent movements first started by one artist, Peter Senior, who set up his studio at a Manchester hospital in northeastern England during the early 1970s. He felt the artist had lost his place in modern society, and that art should be enjoyed by a wider audience. A common hospital waiting room might have as many as 5,000 visitors each week. What a better place to hold regular exhibition of art! Senior held the first exhibition of his own paintings in the outpatients waiting area of the Manchester Royal Hospital in 1975. Believed to be Britain's first hospital artist, Senior was so much in demand that a team of six young art school graduates soon joined him.

    The effect is surprising. Now in the passages and waiting rooms, the visitor experiences a full view of fresh colors, playful images and restful courtyards.

    The quality of the environment may reduce the need for expensive drugs when a patient is recovering from illness. A study has shown that patients who had a view onto garden needed half the number of strong painkillers compared with patients who had no view at all or only a brick wall to look at.

    Roughly the size of a soda can, sitting on a bookshelf, a relatively harmless device(设备) may be turning friends away from your home. The elephant in your living room is your Internet-connected camera, a device people are increasingly using for peace of mind in their homes. But few stop to think about the effect these devices may have on house guests. Should you tell your friends, for instance, that they're being recorded while you all watch the big game together?

    "It's certainly new territory, especially as home security cameras become easier to fix," says Lizzie Post, president of the Emily Post Institute, America's distinguished manners advisors." I think it will be very interesting to see what manners appear in terms of whether you tell people you have a camera or not, and whether guests have a right to ask that it be turned off, if it's not a security issue. "Post wants to make clear that she's not talking about legal rights, but rather personal preference.

When it comes to security cameras, Post says it's a host's responsibility to make sure guests feel comfortable within their home. If the host casually acknowledges that there is a camera in the room by telling a story about it, that may be enough to provide an opening for a guest to say if they are uncomfortable.

    However, if a contractor(合约工)is working in your home, you don't need to tell them that there are cameras watching. Then again, the camera can also work in contractors' favor. "If anything does go wrong while they're in the house, they don't want to be blamed for it," she says. "In fact, the camera could be the thing that proves that they didn't steal the $20, or knock the vase off the table.

    For several decades, there has been an organized campaign intended to produce distrust in science, funded by those whose interests are threatened by the findings of modern science. In response, scientists have tended to stress the success of science. After all, scientists have been right about most things, from the structure of the universe to the relativity of time and space.

    Stressing successes isn't wrong, but for many people it's not persuasive. An alternative answer to the question "Why trust science?" is that scientists use the so-called scientific method. But what is called the scientific method isn't what scientists actually do. Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and at any particular point, scientists can be found doing many different things. False theories sometimes lead to true results, so even if an experiment works, it doesn't prove that the theory it was designed to test is true.

    If there is no specific scientific method, then what is the basis for trust in science? The answer is the methods by which those claims are evaluated. A scientific claim is never accepted as true until it has gone through a long process of examination by fellow scientists. Scientists draft the initial version of a paper and then send it to colleagues for suggestions. Until this point, scientific feedback is typically fairly friendly. But the next step is different: the revised paper is submitted to a scientific journal, where things get a whole lot tougher. Editors deliberately send scientific papers to people who are not friends or colleagues of the authors, and the job of the reviewer is to find errors or other faults. We call this process "peer review" because the reviewers are scientific peers—experts in the same field—but they act in the role of a superior who has both the right and the responsibility to find fault. It is only after the reviewers and the editor are satisfied that any problems have been fixed that the paper will be printed in the journal and enters the body of "science."

    Some people argue that we should not trust science because scientists are "always changing their minds." While examples of truly settled science being overturned are far fewer than is sometimes claimed, they do exist. But the beauty of this scientific process is that science produces both creativity and stability. New observations, ideas, explanations and attempts to combine competing claims introduce creativity; transformative questioning leads to collective decisions and the stability of scientific knowledge. Scientists do change their minds in the face of new evidence, but this is a strength of science, not a weakness.