【推荐1】IT’S A TYPICAL morning: you wake up, take a shower, brush your teeth, and then prick (刺；扎) your arm with a tiny needle. Wait, what? Unless you have a serious disease such as diabetes, you probably haven’t ever tested your own blood. But in the future, that might change.

The company Cor already sells a system for home blood testing. You stick your arm using a supposedly painless, one-off , blood-drawing cartridge (针筒) about the size of a lipstick. Then you stick the cartridge into a device that looks like the base for an electric toothbrush. A few minutes later, an app on your phone buzzes with updated information, including your current health data and tips on what to eat and how to exercise during the day.

It’s true that blood contains a wealth of information about a person’s health. Blood tests can show if a person is infected with a disease or at risk for a variety of problems, including a heart attack or a stroke. But most people don’t test their own blood until a doctor says it’s time. Healthy young adults get regular blood tests about every five years. These tests happen at a lab, where a technician or a nurse sticks a long needle into the arm to draw out several tubes full of blood. Cor and similar companies, such as WellnessFX, are trying to change all that. They think people deserve access to more information about their own health.

But not everyone is convinced that regular blood testing for healthy people is a great idea. Cor’s system is expensive and may pot offer much benefit. “The lightest result here is that you lose your money and then you’re reminded to get more sleep and to eat more fruits, vegetables, and fish,” Pieter Cohen of Harvard Medical School told the New York Times. “The worst result is that you end up getting frightened by probably abnormal results that are actually completely normal for you.”

Plus, the results of a home blood test might be wrong. It’s hard to get accurate results from a tiny amount of blood. So what do you think? Is monitoring your own health via pinpricks the way of the future? Or is it better to leave blood testing to medical professionals?

【推荐2】Regardless of how famous they are, and despite the star treatment they receive, many celebrities make it a point to give back to charities. Some have even set up their own private foundations. Their widely publicized visits to troubled areas of the world help to raise awareness of issues such as famine and poverty. According to Jane Cooper of UNICEF UK, celebrities have a unique ability to reach huge numbers of people, many of whom might not otherwise be engaged in charitable causes. She pointed out that famous faces had played a significant role in raising funds in recent years, and their energies had produced tangible results, such as enabling millions of children in poorer countries to attend school.

But in spite of these successes there is evidence to suggest that celebrity endorsement (代言) may be overrated. In a survey of members of the public to find out if celebrity involvement would encourage people to donate, researchers found that the impact was not as great as previously thought. When shown a list of well-known organizations and famous people who represent them, over half of respondents were unable to match the celebrity with the cause. What’s more, three quarters claimed that they didn’t respond to celebrity endorsement in any way. The survey also showed that a few names did stand out as being associated with particular charities. But the presence of a celebrity in a campaign, was not a significant factor when it came to a decision to donate time or money. Instead, the majority of people contribute because of personal connections in their lives and families which make a charity important to them.

In another study aimed at young people, most participants cited a compelling (无法抗拒的) mission as their main motivation to give. The second most important incentive was if a friend or peer recommended supporting a particular cause. Only two percent of respondents said they were motivated by celebrity endorsement. This seems to contradict the general assumption that teenagers are particularly influenced by famous people. One possible explanation is that there is a general fatigue (疲倦) with celebrity culture. There is also a suspicion that the stars are the one who benefit most when they offer to do charity work. Some critics have accused that celebrities might actually take attention away from issues by attracting more attention than the causes they represent.

So taking all these issues into account, is it time for charities to rethink their campaign strategies and look for alternative ways to reach new audiences? Whichever point of view you favour, there seems to be opportunities for more research into how charity campaigns might develop relationships with celebrities to maximise their potential. This in turn will open up more engagement, and better targeted campaigns-which can only benefit those who really matter — the people and animals that are in need of assistance.