1 . This question has fascinated behavioural scientists for decades: why do we give money to charity?

The explanations for charitable giving fall into three broad categories, from the purely altruisic (利他的)— I donate because I value the social good done by the charity. The “impurely” altruistic— I donate because I extract value from knowing I contribute to the social good for the charity. And the not-at-all altruistic— I donate because I want to show off to potential mates how rich I am.

But are these motives strong enough to enable people to donate as much as they would want to? Most people support charities in one way or another, but often we struggle to make donations as often as we think we should. Although many people would like to leave a gift to charity in their will, they forget about it when the time comes.

Many people are also aware that they should donate to the causes that have the highest impact, but facts and figures are less attractive than narratives. In a series of experiments, it was found that people are much more responsive to charitable pleas that feature a single, identifiable beneficiary(受益者), than they are to statistical information about the scale of the problem being faced. When it comes to charitable giving, we are often ruled by our hearts and not our heads.

The good news is that charitable giving is contagious—seeing others give makes an individual more likely to give and gentle encouragement from an important person in your life can also make a big difference to your donation decisions— more than quadrupling them in our recent study. Habit also plays a part— in three recent experiments those who volunteered before were more likely to do donate their time than those who had not volunteered before.

In summary, behavioural science identifies a range of factors that influence our donations, and can help us to keep giving in the longer term. This is great news not just for charities, but also for donors.

3 . About ten years ago, logging into Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram would mostly show posts from friends and family in the order they were posted. Today, these platforms present a mix of content, tailored by algorithms (算法) to match users’ interests, whether it’s plants, sports, cats, or politics.

Kyle Chayka, a writer for The New Yorker, discusses this topic in his book, Filterworld. He explains that algorithms analyze user data to predict and influence what they will likely engage with. This means that instead of a simple, chronological feed, users encounter a dynamic stream, constantly adapting to their preferences. Chayka examines how these algorithmic recommendations control what we consume, from music and movies to food and travel destinations. He argues that this machine-driven selection process has turned us into passive consumers, making our preferences and tastes more similar.

Chayka points out that algorithms make us passive by always showing us content that we’re unlikely to click away from but won’t find too unexpected or challenging. This constant stream of recommendations reduces our exposure to diverse or challenging content, subtly shaping our preferences and behaviors.

Moreover, Chayka points out that algorithms also pressure content creators, like musicians and artists, to tailor their work to fit these digital platforms. For instance, musicians on Spotify or TikTok might focus on creating catchy hooks at the beginning of their songs to grab the listener’s attention.

Despite the strong presence of these algorithms, Chayka believes that regulation could reduce their influence. He suggests that if Meta, the parent company of Facebook, were required to separate its various services, like Instagram or WhatsApp, and make them compete with each other, it could give users more control and choice over their digital consumption.

In summary, the change from simple, time-ordered social. media posts to algorithm-driven content has a big impact on both the viewers and the creators, influencing what we see, hear, and even think. Chayka’s insights highlight the need for greater awareness and potentially more regulation in our increasingly digital world.

4 . California has been using recycled wastewater for many years. A team has used it to make ice surfaces for the game of hockey(冰球运动). It has been used to make snow for the sport of skiing. And farmers use it to water their crops. But it has not been used directly for drinking water.

Recently, California officials approved new rules to let water agencies recycle wastewater and put it right back into the pipes that carry drinking water to homes, schools, and businesses. It is a big step for California.

California’s new rules would let—but not require—water agencies to take wastewater, treat it, and then put it right back into the drinking water system. That means proving to people that recycled water is not only safe to drink but also not dirty. California would be just the second US state to permit this, following Colorado. It has taken officials more than 10 years to develop these rules, a process that included several studies by independent groups of scientists.

A project in San Diego is aiming to produce nearly half of the city’s water through recycling wastewater by 2035. And the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California aims to produce up to nearly 570 million liters(升)a day for its 19 million people. Adel Hagekhalil is with Metropolitan Water. He said the new rules will permit new projects that have not yet been considered.

California’s new rules require the wastewater be treated for all bacteria and viruses, even if they are not present in the wastewater. In fact, the treatment is so intense that it removes all of the minerals that make fresh drinking water taste good. That means the minerals need to be added back at the end of the process. Polhemus is a director of the drinking water group for the California Water Resources Control Board. “It’s at the same drinking water quality, and probably better in many instances,” he said, adding that it takes time and money to build these treatment centers. So, they will only be available for bigger cities at first.

8 . The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to reverse decades of progress made towards gender equality, according to a global study that reveals women have been hit much harder socially and economically than men. Previously, coronavirus-related gender disparity studies have focused on the direct health impacts of the crisis. It is well known that across the globe men have experienced higher rates of COVID cases, hospitalization and death. However, until now, few studies have examined how gender inequalities have been affected by the many indirect social and economic effects of the pandemic worldwide.

The research, conducted by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington and published in The Lancet, shows that women have experienced greater negative social and economic impacts than men. The greatest and most persistent gender gap was seen in employment and uncompensated labour, with 26% of women reporting loss of work compared with 20% of men globally in September 2021. Women and girls were also more likely to drop out of school and more likely to report an increase in gender-based violence than men and boys.

“This study provides the first comprehensive global evidence on gender disparities for a wide range of health-related, social and economic indicators throughout the pandemic,” said senior author Prof Emmanuela Gakidou. “The evidence suggests that COVID-19 has tended to exacerbate previously existing social and economic disparities.”

The study analysed publicly available data sets from 193 countries using surveys taken from March 2020 to September 2021 on health and well-being during the pandemic. In every part of the world, women have experienced higher rates of employment loss than men since the start of the pandemic.

“Economic impacts have affected women more than men in some countries because they tend to be employed disproportionately in sectors harder-hit by COVID-19, such as the hospitality industry or as domestic workers,” said Dr Luisa Flor, the study’s co-lead author. “Moreover, gendered social norms in many countries attribute household and childcare responsibilities preferentially to women and reduce their time and ability to engage in paid labour.”

“The further we progress in this pandemic the more we feel that the inequities being exacerbated are only going to worsen, and that any pre-pandemic progress towards gender equality will be reversed,” said Rosemary Morgan of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which was not involved in the study. “Hopefully this data will reinforce the need for decision-makers to act before it is too late.”

9 . The majority of Britons are educated in state schools, making up around 60% of those admitted to Oxford and Cambridge in 2013. Admissions at other leading universities were also weighted towards teenagers educated privately.

Then began a quiet revolution. The number of state-schooled pupils getting Oxbridge places has risen yearly; the number from private schools has fallen. The Russell Group of 24 leading universities says its members aim to admit more students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

A few things lie behind this change. The government has given cash to universities to reach underrepresented students and, since 2018, required them to publish plans showing how they are doing this. One report in 2018 showed that eight schools, six of which were private, accounted for more Oxbridge places than 2,900 other secondary schools combined.

Teach First, a scheme that sends clever graduates into tough schools for a couple of years, has also helped raise pupils, eagerness. It began in London, where the highest- performing state schools are concentrated.

All this has fueled a joint effort by schools and universities to make pupils consider the distinguished universities. For those state-school kids getting into top universities, extra help is needed. “You need to provide extra tutoring in the first year,” says Professor Smith from Oxford, who made efforts to admit state-school students before it became fashionable. She says they often do worse in exams at the end of the first year, but clean up in final exams.

That would seem to rebut one of the criticisms made of universities’ efforts to correct the state-private imbalance: that letting in more state-school students means standards will slip. “If you bring in people with diverse experiences and ways of thinking, who challenge one another’s assumptions, it promotes intellectual creativity and academic success,” says Helen, the principal of Mansfield College, Oxford.

“All this adds up to an important change,” says Lawrence. “Increasing numbers of state-school children are applying to universities in America and getting full scholarships.”