Chinese scientists recently have produced two monkeys with the same gene, Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua, using the same technique that gave us Dolly the sheep. These monkeys are not actually the first primates（灵长类）to be cloned. Another one named Tetra was produced in the late 1990s by embryo（胚胎）splitting, the division of an early-stage embryo into two or four separate cells to make clones. By contrast, they were each made by replacing an egg cell nucleus（原子核）with DNA from a differentiated body cell. This Dolly method, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer（SCNT）, can create more clones and allows researchers greater control over the edits they make to the DNA.

    Success came from adopting several new techniques. These included a new type of microscopy to better view the cells during handling or using several materials that encourage cell reprogramming, which hadn't been tried before on primates. Still, the research process proved difficult, and many attempts by the team failed. Just two healthy baby monkeys born from more than 60 tested mothers. This leads to many researchers' pouring water on the idea that the team's results bring scientists closer to cloning humans. They thought this work is not a stepping stone to establishing methods for obtaining live born human clones. Instead, this clearly remains a very foolish thing to attempt, it would be far too inefficient, far too unsafe, and it is also pointless.

    But the scientists involved emphasize that this is not their goal. There is now no barrier for cloning primate species, thus cloning humans is closer to reality. However, their research purpose is entirely for producing non-human primate models for human diseases; they absolutely have no intention, and society will not permit this work to be extended to humans. Despite limitations, they treat this breakthrough a novel model system for scientists studying human biology and disease.

    Persuasion is to convince someone to agree with you, just like art which also calls for special techniques to accomplish. According to the ancient Greeks, there are three basic tools of persuasion: ethos, pathos and logos.

    Ethos is a speaker's way of convincing the audience that he is trustworthy, honest and reliable. One common way a speaker can develop ethos is by explaining how much experience or education he has in the field. After all, you're more likely to listen to advice about how to take care of your teeth from a dentist than a fireman.

    Pathos is a speaker's way of connecting with an audience's emotions. For example, a politician who is trying to convince an audience to vote for him might say that he alone can save the country from a terrible war. These words are intended to fill the audience with fear, thus making them want to vote for him. Similarly, an animal charity might show an audience pictures of injured dogs and cats to make thee viewers feel pity, so they will be more likely to donate money.

    Logos is the use of facts, statistics or other evidence to support your argument. An audience will believe you if you have convincing data to back up your claims. Presenting this evidence is much more persuasive than simply saying “believe me”.

    Although ethos, pathos and logos all have their strengths, they are often most effective when used together. So, the next time you listen to a speech, watch a commercial or listen to a friend try to convince you to lend him some money, be on the lookout for these ancient Greek tools of persuasion.

    Getting stitched(缝合)up by Dr. Robot may one day be reality. Scientists have created a robotic system which did just that in living animals without a real doctor pulling the strings. Much like engineers are designing self-driving cars, the medical research is part of a move toward autonomous surgical robots, removing the surgeon's hands from certain tasks that a machine might perform all by itself.

    Doctors wouldn't leave the bedside they're supposed to watch, plus they'd handle the rest of the surgery. In small tests using pigs, the robotic arm performed at least as well, and in some cases a bit better, as some competing surgeons in stitching together intestinal(肠的)tissue. “The purpose wasn't to replace surgeons,” said Dr. Kim who led the project. “If you have all intelligent tool that works with a surgeon, can it improve the outcome? That's what we have done.”

    If you've heard about machines like the popular Da Vinci system, you might think robots already are operating. Not really. Today many hospitals offer robot-assisted surgery, where surgeons use the machinery as tools that they control by hand, typically,to operate through tiny openings in the body. But robot-assisted surgery has been controversial, as some studies have shown it can bring higher costs without better outcomes.

    Kim's team at Children's Sheikh Zayed Institute invented the new STAR system—it stands for Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot—works sort of like a programmable sewing machine. They added sensors to help guide each stitch and tell how tightly to pull. But the approach wasn't perfect. In the living animals, the robot took much longer and made a few stitching mistakes while the surgeon sewing by hand made none. Kim said the robot can be sped up. Fie hopes to begin human studies in two or three years.

    On Sunday, November 3, 2019, most North Americans will mark the end of Daylight Saving Time (DST) by moving their clocks back an hour. This simple action will not only add an extra 60 minutes to their weekend, but also shift (变换，变动) daylight back into the morning hours, making it a little less painful to wake up for school and work during the shorter winter days.

    Operating the clocks was first suggested by Benjamin Franklin in 1784. He mentioned the idea in a letter to the editor of the Journal of Paris and advised it should be a way to save candles, but it was not taken seriously. George Hudson from New Zealand also recommended moving the clocks back two hours in 1895 to get extra daylight time to study insects. Unfortunately, neither he nor British people William Willett, who suggested it in 1907 as a way to save electricity costs, got their wish.

    It was the German Empire that began the clock shifting tradition on April 30, 1916, to save fuel needed to produce weapons and bombs for World War I. Though a few others, including the US and Britain, adopted the tradition shortly after, all the countries returned to Standard Time once the war ended, only to start DST again during World War II. Once the battle ended in 1945, the US government ended DST nationally but allowed states and districts to continue the tradition and even allowed them to establish their own start and stop dates.

    However, though there have been many attempts to persuade lawmakers to end DST, both in the US and Europe, they have not been successful. Therefore, unless you live in places like Hawaii and Arizona, you have little choice but to "Fall Back" and enjoy the extra hour this weekend! Health experts suggest the best way to adjust is going to bed at your regular time, even if the day is an hour longer.

When {#blank#}1{#/blank#} (ask) by a TV reporter to talk about air and water quality in his hometown, Qi Mu noted, "The air is great now, and we can take more walks and enjoy being outdoors again." He felt quite pleased because the villagers were living {#blank#}2{#/blank#} (harmonious) with nature once more. However, he could not forget about an earlier time {#blank#}3{#/blank#} his village had been struggling with a serious air quality problem.

In the 1990s, garbage from nearby city was usually brought to the village. "How can we make use of this?" The villagers wondered. Soon they found that garbage could be used {#blank#}4{#/blank#} (feed) pigs. "Over the next few years, {#blank#}5{#/blank#} (dozen) of pig farms were set up," Qi recalled. But then nobody in the village wanted to open their windows. "The smell from the garbage and pig waste was making us sick," Qi said. The numbers of mosquitoes and flies were also {#blank#}6{#/blank#} (horrify). "Under such circumstances, no single women wanted to marry anyone in our village and move here," Qi {#blank#}7{#/blank#} (sigh).

The villagers could no longer tolerate the situation. So {#blank#}8{#/blank#} initiative was launched and "clean-up" campaign was added to the government agenda, including restricting large vehicles {#blank#}9{#/blank#} passing through the village. Garbage from the city was no longer disposed of in the village and more trees were planted. "We can all breathe more freely now that the natural beauty of our village {#blank#}10{#/blank#} (restore) since then," said Qi.

Spending all day glued to your smartphone probably isn't doing you any favors. Too much phone use has been linked with a range of concems, including sleep issues, joint pain and even relationship problems. But if it's radiation you're worried about, experts say you don't have to ditch your phone. 

"There's no risk of anything hazardous or dangerous with radiation from cellphones, "said Gayle Woloschak, an associate dean and professor of radiology at the Northwesterm Univerity Feinberg School of Medicine. As with all cellphones, along with Wi-Fi networks, radio stations, remote controls and GPS, smartphones do send out radiation, said Emily Caffrey, an assistant professor of health physics at the University of Alabama at Birningham. They use invisible energy waves to transmit voices, texts, photos and emails to nearby cell towers, which can carry them to almost anywhere in the world. But nearly three decades of scientific research has not linked such exposures to medical issues like cancer, health authorities including the Food and Drug Administration say. Here's what we know. 

"Radiation"describes many types of energy, some of which do carry risks, explained Dr. Howard Fine, director of the Brain Tumor Center at NewYork —Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, "It is often sent out from radioactive substances", Atomic bombs, or, to a far lesser degree, X-ray machines, send out energy called ionizing radiation that in high enough or frequent enough amount can damage DNA and cause cancer, Dr. Fine said. 

But smartphone energy falls into a category called non-ionizing radiation, Dr. Caffrey said, which isn't powerful enough to cause this damage. "A lot of people think‘radiation is radiation, 'but it's not all the same, "Dr. Woloschak said. "There's no DNA damage seen from cellphone use. "

Most experts and health authorities like the F. D. A. and World Health Organization agree that there's no evidence that smartphone radiation causes health problems. Still, several studies over the years have made headlines for suggesting their links to brain diseases. Many of these studies have since been proved to be false, Dr. Fine said, including those focused on fifth-generation.