3 . Forty-five minutes was considered an appropriate amount of time to supply 12-year-old me — and 20 other teenagers — with enough information about eating disorders to last us through high school. A documentary shown on a dusty VHS tape that had obviously been in use since the early 2000s, about two girls suffering from anorexia and bulimia, had been my only source for eating disorder awareness for five years. No reflection time followed, no discussion was started, and no questions were asked.

Flash forward five years I still know nothing. It wasn’t until I was 16 that I learned, via TikTok, that my daily diet of 1,000 calories is barely enough for a two-year-old, let alone a developing teenager. Despite being educated in America’s sixth best county in education, I only had a single image of what an eating disorder looked like: a skin-and-bones teenage girl with sunken eyes. Schools are clearly ill-equipped to educate students on eating disorders and how they can prevent them.

Teenagers have failed to learn about the most common eating disorder in the country because it isn’t taught in many school curriculum: binge eating disorder (暴食症). It is more common than anorexia, affecting 2.8 million Americans, including 1.2 percent of all adolescents. Additionally, it’s reported that males make up 40 percent of those with binge eating disorder, which contradicts the existing opinion that only women are affected by eating disorders.

Instead of learning about eating disorders, my junior health class taught me how to count my calories. According to registered dietitian Christy Harrison, “disordered eating patterns began with calorie counting.” Despite this, health classes across the country continue to require students to track their daily calorie intake.

We need a developed and well-informed eating disorder curriculum. After all, the damage of a seemingly harmless 45-minute video may last someone a lifetime.

4 . It is that time of the year, when a handful of world’s leading scholars, social activists and researchers are rewarded with what is often cited as the most prestigious acknowledgement of human effort-the Nobel Prize. Here’s a look at who has won the prize and for what.

Physiology or Medicine

Swedish geneticist Svante Peabo won the first Nobel of the year, for starting the field of ancient DNA studies. He is well-known for extracting, sequencing, and analyzing ancient DNA from Neanderthal bones.

Physics

Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger’s work in quantum (量子) technology landed them the second Nobel Prize announced in 2022. Although Aspect is from France, Clauser from the U.S, and Zeilinger from Austria, the three separately performed “groundbreaking experiments” as one team. “Their results have cleared the way for new technology,” the committee stated.

Chemistry

The Nobel Prize for chemistry went to another trio, Carolyn R. Bertozzi from the U.S., Morten Meldal from Denmark and K. Barry Sharpless from the U.S. “for the development of click chemistry and biorthogonal chemistry,” the committee stated. Dr. Bertozzi is the eighth woman chemist to be awarded the prize, while Dr. Sharpless is the fifth scientist to be awarded two Nobel Prizes.

Economics

The Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to three American economists, Ben S. Bernanke, Douglas W. Diamond and Philip H. Dybvig “for research on banks and financial crises,” the Nobel Prize committee announced on Monday. By studying the history of American economics, particularly the Great Depression of the 1930s,they improved how we understand the role of banks during times of hardship and the bank’s impact on societal functions.

5 . Living in a city is a well-known risk factor for developing a mental disorder, while living close to nature is largely beneficial for mental health and the brain. A central brain region, the amygdala (大脑杏仁核) involved in stress processing, has been shown to be less activated during stress in people living in rural areas, compared to those who live in cities, hinting at the potential benefits of nature. “But so far the hen-and-egg problem could not be resolved, namely whether nature actually caused the effects in the brain or whether the particular individuals chose to live in rural or urban regions,” says Sonja Sudimac.

To achieve causal evidence, the researchers from the group examined brain activity in regions involved in stress processing in 63 healthy volunteers before and after a one-hour walk in Grunewald forest or a shopping street with traffic in Berlin. The results revealed that activity in the amygdala decreased after the walk in nature, suggesting that nature elicits beneficial effects on brain regions related to stress.

“The results support the previously assumed positive relationship between nature and brain health, but this is the first study to prove the causal link. Interestingly, the brain activity after the urban walk in these regions remained stable and showed no increases, which argues against a commonly held view that urban exposure causes additional stress,” explains Simone Kühn, head of the group.

The authors show that nature has a positive impact on brain regions involved in stress processing and that it can already be observed after a one-hour walk. This contributes to the understanding of how our physical living environment affects brain and mental health. Even a short exposure to nature decreases amygdala activity, suggesting that a walk in nature could serve as a preventive measure against developing mental health problems and reducing the potentially disadvantageous impact of the city on the brain.

In order to investigate beneficial effects of nature in different populations and age groups, the researchers are currently working on a study examining how a one-hour walk in natural versus urban environments impacts stress in mothers and their babies.

6 . Brazilian artist Néle Azevedo is best known for big public art pieces. The artist carves hundreds of 20 -centimeter-tall ice figures seated with their ankles crossed and places them atop outdoor steps and puts them in city squares all over the world, where they quickly melt. The faceless sculptures drip and pool into small puddles as time passes. Her works have been adopted by environmentalists as a kind of activist art against climate change.

But is it? Yes and (mostly) no.

The mass of melting bodies makes a natural connection to the threat humankind faces due to rising global temperatures. “Its close link with that subject is evident,” said the artist. In addition to the threat of global warming itself, the sheer number of sculptures sitting together also calls attention to the fact that we humans are all in it together. “Such kind of threats also finally put man in his place, his fate is along with the destiny of the planet, and he is not the ‘king’ of nature, but an essential element of it,” continues Azevedo on her website.

“I took every characteristic of traditional monuments and made the opposite,” she says. “I made small figures that sit on the floor. It doesn’t honor anybody. It does honor the unknown.”

Azevedo explains, “In a few-minute action, the rules of the monument are inverted: in the place of the hero, the unknown; in the place of the solidity of the stone, the momentary process of the ice; in the place of the monument size, the minimum size of the perishable (易毁坏的) bodies.” Originally Azevedo wanted her art to get people thinking about impermanence, and the sight of ice transforming into a puddle of water certainly does that brilliantly.

7 . Though researchers have long known that adults build unconscious (无意识的) preferences over a lifetime of making choices between things that are essentially the same, the new finding that even babies engage in this phenomenon demonstrates that this way of justifying choice is intuitive (凭直觉的) and somehow fundamental to the human experience.

“The act of making a choice changes how we feel about our options,” said Alex Silver, a Johns Hopkins researcher. “Even infants who are really just at the start of making choices for themselves have this preference.”

The findings are published today in the journal Psychological Science. People assume they choose things that they like. But research suggests that’s sometimes backwards: we like things because we choose them. And, we dislike things that we don’t choose. “Adults make these inferences unconsciously,” said co-author Lisa Feigenson, a Johns Hopkins scientist in child development. “We justify our choice after the fact.”

This makes sense for adults in a consumer culture who must make random choices every day, between everything from toothpaste brands to styles of jeans. The question was when exactly people start doing this. So they turned to babies, who don’t get many choices so, as Feigenson puts it, are “a perfect window into the origin of this tendency.”

The team brought 10-to 20-month-old babies into the lab and gave them a choice of objects to play with; two equally bright and colorful soft blocks. They set them far apart, so the babies had to crawl to one or the other — a random choice. After the baby chose one of the toys, the researchers took it away and came back with a new option. The babies could then pick from the toy they didn’t play with the first time, or a brand new toy. Their choices showed they “dis-prefer the unchosen object.”

To continue studying the evolution of choice in babies, the lab will next look at the idea of “choice overload.” For adults, choice is good, but too many choices can be a problem, so the lab will try to determine if that is also true for babies.

9 . Have you ever walked through a door and thought to yourself, “What was I going to do?” If you have, you are not alone. Psychologists believe that walking through a door and entering another room creates a “mental block” in the brain. This is generally referred to as the doorway effect.

In the early years of brain research, scientists thought that human memory was like a closet, with many sections in which we could store little boxes of experiences from our lives. Boxes would remain there forever, and whenever we had to look into them, we could just go to that particular section and find that box of memory.

Beautiful as this description of human memory formation sounds, it is not true. Our brain is much more complex than that. Psychological studies suggest that our memories are episodic(情节性的)in general. If you think back on anything, you’ll probably quickly realize our memories don’t function as clear narratives. Instead, they’re more episodic and divided into parts.

A new research led by psychologist Oliver Baumann from Bond University in Australia suggests that it’s not so much the doorways that cause a memory wipe, as moving from one location to a significantly different one—it’s the abrupt change of scene that prepares our minds for something new. “A good example is moving around in a department store,” says Baumann, “Taking the elevator between floors may have no effect on our memory, but moving from the store to the parking lot might cause us to forget something that we need to buy.”

Baumann also points out that a busy and perhaps overloaded brain does seem to play some part in this phenomenon. In other words, walking through open doors is thought to reset memory to make room for a new episode.

The good news is that experiencing such forgettable episodes after entering another room does not tell you anything about your memory and intelligence. So when you enter a room and suddenly forget why you are there, you should not think that Alzheimer’s disease is creeping up on you!

10 . Scientists have solved a puzzle about modern humans, after research showed that a famous skull of a human ancestor found in South Africa is a million years older than experts thought. This discovery has changed what we know of human history.

The skull, which scientists have named “Mrs Ples”, is from an ape-like human relative from a species called Australopithecus africanus (南方古猿). It was found near Johannesburg in 1947 and, based on evidence from its surroundings, was thought to be between 2. 1 and 2. 6 million years old. This puzzled scientists, because although Mrs Ples looks like a possible early ancestor of early humans, the first true humans had already evolved by the time she apparently lived. For this reason, scientists had decided that Australopithecus afarensis, a similar species from East Africa that lived about 3.5 million years ago, was our most likely ancestor instead.

To get a more accurate age for Mrs Ples, a team led by Professor Darryl Granger of Purdue University in Indiana, US, used a new method to date the sandy rocks where the skull lay. They measured the amount of certain chemicals in rocks, which form at a steady rate when they are exposed to cosmic rays (宇宙射线) on Earth’s surface. Once rocks are buried, these chemicals stop forming and slowly disappear;the surviving amount reveals how much time has passed since the rock (or bones) were on the surface.

The new study shows that Mrs Ples and other australopithecine bones nearby are between 3.4 and 3.7 million years old. This means they lived at the same time as their East African relatives, so that either group could have given rise to modern humans. However, team member Dr Laurent Bruxelles pointed out that over millions of years, at only 2,500 miles away, these groups had plenty of time to travel and to breed with each other. In other words, the groups could quite easily have met, had children together and both been part of the history of modern humans.