Recordings of angry bees are enough to send big, tough African elephants running away, a new study says. Beehives (蜂窝)—either recorded or real—may even prevent elephants from damaging farmer's crops.

    In 2002, scientist Lucy King and her team found that elephants avoid certain trees with bees living in them. Today, Lucy wants to see if African honeybees might discourage elephants from eating crops. But before she asked farmer to go to the trouble of setting up beehives on their farms, she needed to find out if the bees would scare elephants away.

    Lucy found a wild beehive inside a tree in northern Kenya and set up a recorder. Then she threw a stone into the beehive, which burst into life. Lucy and her assistant hid in their car until the angry bees had calmed down. Next，Lucy searched out elephant families in Samburu National Reserve in northern Kenya and put a speaker in a tree close to each family.

    From a distance, Lucy switched on the pre-recorded sound of angry bees while at the same time recording the elephants with a video camera. Half the elephant groups left the area within ten seconds. Out of a total of 17 groups, only one group ignored the sound of the angry bees. Lucy reported that all the young elephants immediately ran to their mothers to hide under them. When Lucy played the sound of a waterfall (瀑布) instead of the angry bees to many of the same elephant families, the animals were undisturbed. Even after four minutes, most of the groups stayed in one place.

Lucy is now studying whether the elephants will continue to avoid the sound of angry bees after hearing it several times. She hasn't tested enough groups yet to know, but her initial (最初的) results were promising enough to begin trials with farmers. She has now begun placing speakers in the fields to see if elephants are frightened away.

    We bet that on cold winter days, many of you love to stay in your warm home and, every now and then, come out into the kitchen for a snack. Unfortunately, plenty of small insects like to do the same thing! Winter is the time when small insects enter your house without an invitation. The season can be difficult for such creatures. In winter the air is cold, the ground is hard and many trees have no leaves. So small insects do what they have to do to survive.

    Monarch butterflies head south to warmer climates. Ants crowd in deep underground colonies and eat food they have been storing all year. Many insects go into a deep sleep called diapauses. There're different kinds of diapauses, but all are similar to hibernation, a time when bigger animals become inactive in the cold. Insects go into an inactive period, too, but it often isn't when the temperature drops.

    They rely on more dependable signals in the environment. For example, many insects can tell how much sunlight there's each day. They use that to tell themselves when to shut down. Insects are cold-blooded, meaning that their inside temperature is the same as the outside. They can't move much when it gets below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. So they search for any warm place.

    They're looking for protection. These guys have been doing this for 300 million years, so they don't really know they're coming into your house. The home is a recent event in terms of their evolutionary (进化的) behavior. They enter through tiny cracks or come in unnoticed on your clothes or shoes. Remember that they may be entering your homes for warmth and food, but they don't care about humans.

    The European Parliament has approved a law banning a wide-range of single-use plastic items, such as straws and cotton buds by 2021. "Europe is setting new standards, paving the way(铺路) for the rest of the world," the European Commission's vice-president Frans Timmermans, who is responsible for sustainable development, said in a statement.

    The new plans come after the EC found that plastics make up more than 80% of marine litter, which has disastrous effects on wildlife and habitats. The EU parliament notes that because of its slow rate of breaking down, plastic residue(残余) has been found in marine species as well as fish and shellfish - and therefore also makes its way into the human food chain.

    Under the new European law, tobacco companies will be required to cover the costs for the collection of cigarette butts. Manufacturers of fishing tools will also have to pay for the retrieval(找回) of any plastic nets that have been left at sea. There's also a new focus on further raising public awareness, where producers of items such as tobacco filters(滤嘴), plastic cups, and wet wipes will be required to clearly explain to users how to appropriately dispose of them.

    The European Commission first suggested the ban in May, which was approved by member states in October. China last year banned the import of 24 varieties of solid waste, including types of plastic and unsorted paper, putting pressure on Europe to deal with its own waste.

    The World Economic Forum estimates that there are about 150 million tons of plastic in the world's seas. A study published in Science in 2015 suggested that between 5 and 13 million tons more are flowing into them every year. Research shows there will be more plastic than fish by weight in the world's oceans by 2050, which has encouraged policymakers, individuals and companies into action.

    Have you ever fallen for a novel and been amazed not to find it on lists of great books? Or walked around a sculpture known as a classic, struggling to see why it is famous? If so, you've probably thought about the question a psychologist, James Cutting, asked himself: How does a work of art come to be considered great?

    The direct answer is that some works of art are just great: of inner superior quality. The paintings that win prime spots in galleries, get taught in classes are the ones that have proved their artistic value over time. If you can't see they're superior, that's your problem. But some social scientists have been asking questions of it, raising the possibility that artistic canons(名作目录)are little more than old historical accidents.

    Cutting, a professor at Cornell University, wondered if a psychological pattern known as the "mere­exposure effect" played a role in deciding which paintings rise to the top of the cultural league. Cutting designed an experiment to test his hunch(直觉). Over a lecture course he regularly showed undergraduates works of impressionism for two seconds at a time. Some of the paintings canonical, included in art­history books. Others were lesser known but of comparable quality were exposed four times as often. Afterwards, the students preferred them to the canonical works, while a control group liked the canonical ones best. Cuttings students had grown to like those paintings more simply because they had seen them more.

    Cutting believes his experiment casts light on how canons are formed. He reproduced works of impressionism today bought by five or six wealthy and influential collectors in the late 19th century. Their preferences given to certain works made them more likely to be hung in galleries and printed in collections. And the fame passed down the years. The more people were exposed to, the more they liked it, and the more they liked it, the more it appeared in books, on posters and in big exhibitions. Meanwhile, academics and critics added to their popularity. After all, it's not just the masses who tend to rate what they see more often more highly. Critics' praise is deeply mixed with publicity. "Scholars", Cutting argues, "are no different from the public in the effects of mere exposure."

    The process described by Cutting show a principle that the sociologist Duncan Watts calls "cumulative advantage": once a thing becomes popular, it will tend to become more popular still. A few years ago, Watts had a similar experience to Cutting's in another Paris museum. After queuing to see the "Mona Lisa" at the Louvre, he came away puzzled: why was it considered so superior to the three other Leonardos, to which nobody seemed to be paying the slightest attention?

    When Watts looked into the history of "the greatest painting of all time", he discovered that, for most of its life, the "Mona Lisa" remained in relative obscurity. In the 1850s, Leonardo da Vinci was considered no match for giants of Renaissance art like Titian and Raphael, whose works were worth almost ten times as much as the "Mona Lisa" It was only in the 20th century that "Mona Lisa rocketed to the number­one spot. What brought it there wasn't a scholarly re­evaluation, but a theft. In 1911 a worker at the Louvre walked out of the museum with the "Mona Lisa" hidden under his coat. Parisians were shocked at the theft of a painting to which, until then, they had paid little attention. When the museum reopened, people queued to see it. From then on, the "Mona Lisa "came to represent Western culture itself.

    The intrinsic (本质的) quality of a work of art is starting to seem like its least important attribute. But perhaps it's more significant than our social scientists admit. Firstly, a work needs a certain quality to reach the top of the pile. The "Mona Lisa" may not be a worthy world champion but it was in the Louvre in the first place, and not by accident. Secondly, some objects are simply better than others. Read "Hamlet" after reading even the greatest of Shakespeare's contemporaries, and the difference may strike you as unarguable.

    A study suggests that the exposure effect doesn't work the same way on everything, and points to a different conclusion about how canons are formed. Great art and mediocrity (平庸)can get confused, even by experts. But that's why we need to see, and read, as much as we can. The more were exposed to the good and the bad, the better we are at telling the difference.

There's no doubt that Dolly Parton knows how to light up a stage; however, she's also spent a number of decades trying to bring a spark to children's education.

Through programs such as the Buddy Program and the Imagination Library, the American singer is sharing her passion for giving kids a better chance in life across the states and further in the UK, Australia, Canada and Ireland.

Among other charity efforts, Parton was inspired to introduce the Buddy Program after seeing the alarming dropout rate in her hometown of Sevierville, Tennessee, in 1990. That year 34% of schoolkids dropped out of high school—a decision they reached around fifth or sixth grade. The figures were so shocking that Parton decided to inspire kids with her new program. So, in the same year, she invited the fifth and sixth graders to her amusement park, Dollywood. She gathered the pupils and asked them to pair up with a friend as part of a motivating buddy system. If both children went on to graduate, she said she would offer them both a $500 check as a reward. That year the percentage of kids abandoning their education dropped to an unbelievable 6%, and continues to be around that rate today.

It was after the success of the Buddy Program that Parton wanted to address the issue of early education even further. To help give kids from disadvantaged backgrounds a better chance at school, the singer started her Imagination Library in 1995. Over the following 25 years the program has seen babies and toddlers enjoy new books every month thanks to her generosity.

And the singer shows no sign of stopping. In 2020, she donated $1 million to Vanderbilt University to try and help research in the fight against COVID-19.

The Tokyo Olympics have been postponed until 2021. That delay offers a chance for reflection. The International Olympic Committee wants to make the games more popular with young people. To that end, it is introducing new events, such as skateboarding, surfing and climbing. Why not go further and let national teams compete at video games? Electronic sports such as "Fortnite", are vastly more popular than strange Olympic sports like curling (冰壶). In fact, they are more appealing than most mainstream sports. Only 28% of British boys aged 16-19 watch any traditional live sports; 57% play video games.

Some may complain that e-sports are not proper sports. Many parents, observing their teenagers sitting on the sofa all day shouting "Quick, pass me the shotgun!" at a screen, would agree. Yet video games are highly competitive, with professional teams that play to packed stadiums. There are perhaps only 200 tennis stars in the world who can make a living from playing in major competitions. By contrast, "League of Legends", a fantasy game played by teams of five, supports over 1,000 on good wages. Its World Championship final last year was watched by 44 million people.

Those against e-sports offer moral objections, too. They are addictive. Prince Harry has called for "Fortnite" to be banned for this reason. They are violent. At a time of global disharmony, it is bad idea to make virtual (虚拟的) killing an Olympic sport. The Olympics aim to promote peace.

Neither of these arguments is convincing. The idea that an activity, rather than material, can be addictive is controversial among doctors, as is the existence of a causal (因果的) link between gaming and violence. And the belief that warlike sports have no place in the Olympics is hard to agree with history. Wrestling was introduced in 708 BC. It is still there.