My doctor took me for a walk around the farm where she lives. I was physically and emotionally exhausted and discouraged by anxiety and depression.

The place was full of life. There were insects, horses, rabbits and a cat. She told me to focus on my body in the environment.

When I was ill I tended to retreat into my mind and disconnect from here and now. So, when I met a horse named Fira, I expected nothing.

As I got closer to Fira, she nuzzled (用鼻子爱抚)her nose into my chest, putting a gentle pressure over my heart. Something happened inside me: I felt as if I had reached a wellspring (源泉)of past hurts, fears and failings. I began to melt emotionally.

I patted Fira's nose and breathed in her smell. I found I didn't have to concentrate on feeling better; Fira helped me feel loved and safe.

I worked with Fira often, learning basic communication and leading methods to work together with her. Initially, I wasn't sure exactly what one would do with a horse except riding it. But I knew that Fira had touched me in an uncommon way and had made me feel better. She connected with me by responding to my emotional state and reflecting it back to me in an open, affectionate way.

In my meetings with Fira, I found that I lost my usual self-consciousness and I would focus entirely on communicating.

I learned to live in the present, to focus on what was happening this day, in this moment, in this place. I learned to forget the past, with all its hurts. I learned to forget the future, which hasn't happened yet. When you stand beside a horse, you exist completely in the moment.

"With Fira by my side, I saw into a life in which trust comes first, and compassion follows.

I found a deep peace in leading her along a path, by using my own power of intention to indicate whether to start, stop, turn left or turn right. I felt an inner quiet and even joy. My work with this horse was part of a journey out of a very dark night in my soul.

Yes, having a big name in science will help get your paper published, a new study confirms. Involving hundreds of researchers reviewing an economics paper, the study found that reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance when the paper was associated with a famous author compared to a lesser-known one.

The Matthew effect, a term coined in 1968 to describe this prejudice, has been a topic of concern among scientists for years. However, previous efforts to document this prejudice had limitations such as small sample sizes or lack of randomization. To address these issues, a team from the University of Innsbruck conducted an extensive study.

The team sent emails to about 3,300 researchers, inviting them to review an economics paper for a real journal. The paper had two authors: Vernon Smith, a Nobel Prize winner, and Sabiou Inoua, one of Smith's former Ph. D. students. The potential reviewers received one of three descriptions of the paper: one mentioning only Smith, another mentioning only Inoua, and a third with no author mentioned. Of the researchers who agreed to review the paper, Smith's fame influenced their responses. When given only Smith's name, 38.5% accepted the invitation to review, while the figures were 30.7% for those given no name and 28.5% for those given only Inoua's name.

To further avoid prejudice, the team randomly assigned the 313 reviewers who initially received no author's name to review one of three papers: one credited to Smith alone, another to Inoua alone,and a third with no authors listed. Reviewers rated the paper credited to Smith the highest, praising its inclusion of new information and data-supported conclusions. The version with no authors received recommendations for acceptance from 24% of reviewers, more than double the percentage for the version credited only to Inoua.

The team warned against evaluating identical work differently based on the author's identity and suggested that double-blind reviews may reduce the prejudice. However, this approach may not be effective as reviewers can often identify authors through preprints or conference presentations.

The past few months have brought electrifying news that, for the first time, a gene treatment has provided some hearing to children born with deafness.

Eli Lilly announced this week, for example, that a profoundly deaf boy from Morocco given its treatment as part of a clinical trial in Philadelphia can now hear. And five children in China treated similarly at younger ages gained hearing with some able to verbally communicate without their cochlear implants(人工耳蜗). Their hearing recovery, first covered by the press in October 2023, is described in de tail this week in The Lancet.

"It's an enormous achievement," says geneticist Karen Avraham of Tel Aviv University. Otolaryngologist(耳鼻喉科专家) and gene therapist Lawrence Lustig of Columbia University, whose lab was among the first to test the same approach in mice, agrees. "Other than cochlear implants, we haven't really had any successful treatment s to treat deafness," he notes.

The various efforts from companies and academic centers each use a virus to insert the same gene, OTOF, into the children's inner ear so the so-called hair cells there can sense sound and transmit it to the brain.

The new deafness treatments add to a string of recent successes for the gene treatment field, but also raise questions. The ear's hair cells don't divide, so the new copies of OTOF they contain should persist and continue to instruct the cells to make OTOF. Gene expression could drop off over time or the ear could mount an immune response that shuts it off.

But Lustig is optimistic that the various challenges will be overcome. "Now that we've got one success story, there's going to be more money coming in to fund some of these other projects," he says.