Everybody is happy as his pay rises．Yet pleasure at your own can disappear if you learn that a fellow worker has been given a bigger one．Indeed, if he is known as being lazy, you might even be quite cross．Such behavior is regarded as "all too human", with the underlying belief that other animals would not be able to have this finely developed sense of sadness．But a study by Sarah Brosnan of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, which has just been published in Nature, suggests that it is all too monkey, as well．

    The researchers studied the behaviors of some kind of female brown monkeys．They look smart． They are good-natured, co-operative creatures, and they share their food happily．Above all, like female human beings, they tend to pay much closer attention to the value of "goods and services" than males．

    Such characteristics make them perfect subjects for Doctor Brosnan's study．The researchers spent two years teaching their monkeys to exchange tokens （奖券） for food．Normally, the monkeys were happy enough to exchange pieces of rock for pieces of cucumber．However, when two monkeys were placed in separate and connected rooms, so that each other could observe what the other is getting in return for its rock, they became quite different．

    In the world of monkeys, grapes are excellent goods （and much preferable to cucumbers）．So when one monkey was handed a grape in exchange for her token, the second was not willing to hand hers over for a mere piece of cucumber．And if one received a grape without having to provide her token in exchange at all, the other either shook her own token at the researcher, or refused to accept the cucumber．Indeed, the mere presence of a grape in the other room （without an actual monkey to eat it） was enough to bring about dissatisfaction in a female monkey．

    The researches suggest that these monkeys, like humans, are guided by social senses．In the wild, they are co-operative and group-living．Such co-operation is likely to be firm only when each animal feels it is not being cheated．Feelings of anger when unfairly treated, it seems, are not the nature of human beings alone．Refusing a smaller reward completely makes these feelings clear to other animals of the group．However, whether such a sense of fairness developed independently in monkeys and humans, or whether it comes from the common roots that they had 35 million years ago, is, as yet, an unanswered question．

    Mountaineers have noted that as they climb, for example, up to the 12,633­foot Humphreys Peak in Arizona, plant life changes greatly. In the Sonoran Desert, one climbs into a pine forest at 7,000 feet and a treeless tundra(冻土带) on the top of the mountain. It may seem that plants at a given altitude are associated in what can be called “communities” －groupings of species. The idea is that over time, plants that require particular climate and soil conditions come to live in the same places, and are frequently to be found together. Scientists study the history of plant life and build up a picture of how groups of plants have responded to climate changes and how ecosystems develop. But are these associations, which are real in the present, permanent?

    A great natural experiment took place on this planet between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, when small changes in the earth's orbit caused great sheets of ice to spread from poles. These glaciers(冰川) covered much of North America and Europe to depths of up to two miles, and then, as the climate warmed, they retreated. During this retreat, they left behind newly uncovered land for living things to occupy, and as those living things moved in they laid down a record we can read now. As the ice retreated and plants started to grow near a lake, they release pollen(花粉). Some would fall into the lake, sink to the bottom and mix with the sand. By drilling into the lake bottom it is possible to read the record of the plant life around the lake. The fossil record seems clear; there is little or no evidence that entire groups of plants moved north together. Things that lived together in the past don't live together now, and things that live together now didn't live together in the past. Each individual living things moved at its own pace. The fossil record seems to be telling us that we should be thinking about preserving species by giving them room to move about－to respond to environmental changes.

    In my generation, most people assume. We assume that after getting a driver's license, we should see a brand new car sitting in our driveway. We assume that the latest iPhone product should be in our hands as soon as something goes wrong with our old one. We also assume that college, being as expensive as it is, is given. However, what we don't realize is that all of these things are very special privileges.

    New cars, the latest technology and college fees are something that most people have in the place where I live. I'm not necessarily complaining about this. I live in a very fortunate area, and I try to remind myself of that every day.

    Getting nice things is great, but sometimes, the competition that rules our lives gets too fierce. When someone else gets something great, you begin to think, "Why can't I have that?" When everyone around you goes to college, you think that one day you will obviously do the same, because who doesn't?

    Even now, being almost done with my first year of college, I constantly see people who forget why we're here, and how lucky we are to be on this campus. All of the distractions can surely keep you from doing your best, and they can easily make you forget your real purpose at college. The parties, friends, events, and overall social life can move you into a never-ending whirlpool (旋涡）of not doing schoolwork. Having fun is a part of life, but balance is the key when it comes to college.

    Appreciation nowadays is slowly fading into a distant thought. We constantly forget how lucky we are to have the things and the life that we do. Surely, who doesn't dream of a new car waiting for them, or that brand new iPhone that you see in all of the commercials? But wanting something is different from expecting it. Setting yourself up with an "I should get this" attitude will only push appreciation further away.

    Appreciate what you have, but don't expect what you don't have. Say thank you to those who help and support you, and realize that whoever you are, you're lucky in a great way.

    In England, some food companies across the whole country have been told to carry out urgent (紧急的) tests on all beef products. Do you know why? That's because some food companies used horse meat to make beef products.

    There are some examples about the horse meat matter. In January, 2013, in a number of UK supermarkets, frozen hamburgers were found to have traces of horse meat in them. Some frozen beef products made by food company FINDUS were found to contain horse meat. All of the beef products made by this company have been removed from sale.

    The government said that there's nothing to suggest any health risk from the products. Food minister David Heath said people should not throw away frozen meat products and carry on eating meat. The government will tell people not to eat meat if the meat is not safe.

    Food safety has been an important matter all over the world. More and more countries plan to take some useful measures to ensure the safety of food.

    In 2007, the editors of the Oxford Junior English Dictionary, convinced that their reference work “needed to reflect the consensus experience of modern-day childhood.”banned a group of old terms used less today describing the natural world. They inserted newer and supposedly more useful words describing the digital fields that young people in habit today.

    Thus they say goodbye to “acorn”, but say hello to “attachment”. “Beech” and “bluebell” come out of the dictionary. While “blog” and “broadband” come into it. And they say farewell to “catkin” and “cowslip” because here come “celebrity” and “chat room”.

    It's possible, of course, that those Oxford editors had a good reason for their vocabular cleansing. Perhaps they had read the Cambridge University study revealing that most young children can identify Pokémon(神奇宝贝)species far more easily than they can name real-life sparrows.

    But is this simply another fight in the language war, an ongoing battle between people? Some people argue that a dictionary should model how language works best, while some people insist that it should capture how language works now.

In Britain, some citizens felt justified in fighting back against the decision of the Oxford editors. The protest of the thinning of the word herd almost immediately attracted more than200, 000 signatures.

    Susie Dent, author of Modern Tribes：The Secret Languages of Britain, is doing everything in her power to guarantee “the old markers of time”. “Fortnight”(fourteen nights, or two weeks)is among her cherished favorites.

    Thanks to them, I can now show off my knowledge that a “snollygoster” is a “shrewd person, especially a politician”.

    Why elephants rarely get cancer is a mystery that has confused scientists for decades. A study was led by researchers at Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) at the University of Utah and Arizona State University, including researchers from the Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation may have found the answer. According to the results, elephants have 38 additional modified copies of a gene (基因) that encodes p53, a well-defined tumor (肿瘤) suppressor, as compared to humans, who have only two. Further, elephants may have a more powerful mechanism for killing damaged cells that are at risk for becoming cancerous. In isolated elephant cells, this activity is doubled compared to healthy human cells, and five times that of cells from patients with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome, who have only one working copy of p53 and more than a 90 percent lifetime cancer risk in children and adults. The results suggest extra p53 could explain elephants' increased resistance to cancer.

    "Nature has already figured out how to prevent cancer. It's up to us to learn how different animals overcome the problem so we can adapt those strategies to prevent cancer in people," says co-senior author Joshua Schiffman, M.D., pediatric oncologist (肿瘤学家) at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, and Primary Children's Hospital.

    According to Schiffman, elephants have long been considered a walking problem. Because they have 100 times as many cells as people, they should be 100 times more likely to have a cell slip into a cancerous state and cause the disease over their long life span of 50 to 70 years. And yet it's believed that elephants get cancer less often, a theory confirmed in this study. Analysis of a large database of elephant deaths estimates a cancer death rate of less than 5 percent compared to 11 to 25 percent in people.