Parents who help their children with homework may actually be bringing down their school grades. Other forms of prenatal involvement, including volunteering at school and observing a child's class, also fail to help, according to the most recent study on the topic.
The findings challenge a key principle of modern parenting(养育子女) where schools except them to act as partners in their children's education. Previous generations concentrated on getting children to 
school on time, fed, dressed and ready to learn.
       Kaith Robinson, the author of the study, said, "I really don't know if the public is ready for this but there are some ways parents can be 
involved in their kids' education that leads to declines in their academic performance. One of the things that was consistently negative was
 parents' help with homework." Robinson suggested that may be because parents themselves struggle to understand the task." They may 
either not remember the material their kids are studying now, or in some cases never learnt it themselves, but they're still offering advice."
       Robinson assessed parental involvement performance and found one of the most damaging things a parent could do was to punish their children for poor marks. In general, about 20% of parental involvement was positive, about 45% negative and the rest statistically
 insignificant.
      Common sense suggests it was a good thing for parents to get involved because "children with good academic success do have involved
 parents ", admitted Robinson. But he argued that this did not prove parental involvement was the root cause of that success." A big 
surprise was that Asian-American parents whose kids are doing so well in school hardly involved. They took a more reasonable approach, conveying to their children how success at school could improve their lives."

    The World Health Organization report compared the “obesity-related behaviors” for youngsters across 42 nations. And it reveals UK kids are among the laziest.

    Among teenage girls, the Scots topped the league table for most screen time, with 80 per cent spending at least two hours a day on computers. Wales came fourth with 76 per cent, and England seventh with 75 per cent. Girls in Armenia and Albania were least likely to spend hours idling online.

    Screen time figures for boys were even higher. Wales was second in the European “couch potato” league, with 85 per cent glued to their screens for at least two hours. Scotland was third with 84 per cent, and England 15th with 77 per cent. Boys in Switzerland and Portugal were least likely to dedicate two hours a day to sitting in front of a computer.

    Lead researcher Dr. Jo Inchley, from the University of St Andrews, said social media was impacting on kids' health. She said,“ We know there are risks, such as cyber bullying and impact on mental health. Also, there are longer-term impacts on physical health from being sedentary. One of the main challenges is that this kind of activity (social media and computer use) is so much part of young people's lives these days.” She said more needs to be done to get kids moving throughout the day.

    Dr. Steven Mann, research director for UK Active said the findings were “alarming”. He said, “Modern life has changed, but when teens are spending hours having fun with Facebook, Instagram and videogames, they simply aren't getting the exercise that they need. These alarming inactivity figures show that playtime is over before it has started for too many children, putting them at far greater risk of future conditions like heart disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes.”

    Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, warned Brit teens are now “slaves to hand-held devices”. And the WHO warns four in five fat teens will continue to struggle with their weight throughout life. The report also shows less than half of UK youngsters consume fruit or veg daily.

    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.

    Physics is a different world now. Will there ever be another Einstein?

    Scientists say a new Einstein will appear, but it may take a long time. After all, more than 200 years separated Einstein from his nearest rival (对手) , Isaac Newton. Many physicists say the next Einstein hasn't been born yet, or is only a baby now. That's because the searching for a unified(统一的) theory that would explain all the forces of nature has pushed current mathematics to its limits. New math must be created before the problem can be solved.

    But researchers say there are many other factors working against another Einstein appearing anytime soon. For one thing, physics is quite a different field today. In Einstein's day, there were a few thousand physicists worldwide, and fewer theoreticians. Education is different, too. One extremely important aspect of Einstein's training that failed to be considered is the philosophy he read as a teenager. It taught him how to think theoretically about space and time.

    And he was a skilled musician. The interplay between music and math is well known. Einstein would fiercely play his violin as a way to think through a knotty physics problem.

    Today, universities have produced millions of physicists. There aren't many jobs in science for them, so they go to Wall Street and Silicon Valley to apply their analytical skills to more practical and rewarding efforts.

    Besides, those who stay in science don't work alone. It's very difficult to imagine an independent person like Einstein ever tolerating this.

    Everyone knows that if a dog's ears are up and its tail is wagging vigorously, it is definitely pleased to see you, but now scientists using a robot have found that the way dogs use their tails is more complicated than we thought, and that dogs which wag them to the left may he more friendly. The animal psychologists discovered that when real dogs approached a life-sized robot dog, they were less cautious about it when it was wagging its tail to the left, while if it was wagging its tail to the right, far fewer dogs approached it in a confident manner.

    In the first experiments, 56 percent of the animals approached the model without hesitation when the tail was wagged to the left, while only 21 percent did so in the other situation. When the researchers excluded (排除) owners from being present, the result were: 31 percent of the dogs approached continuously when the tail was wagging to the left, while only 18 percent did so when it was on the right.

    Animal psychologist Roger Mugford said it added to the growing evidence that does were even more complicated communicators than the animals more closely related to man such as monkeys. He said, "We know that dogs, in a sense, have languages, but it is more complicated because it is not just them wagging their tails, but also giving out chemical displays."

    He adds, "The research confirms earlier studies suggesting that dogs, like humans, had a left-side preference. If you are going to present a signal to a dog, it is sensible to put it on your left-hand side because that is where dogs, unlike most other animals, tend to look. It is another example of the similarity between dogs and humans. They are a lot more human than we give them credit for."