In 1882, in a townhouse at 136 East 36th Street in New York City, Edward Hibberd Johnson had an idea that would make him the unsung set decorator of a zillion holiday snapshots. Although Christmas trees became popular between 1840 and 1870, what really made them were the candles. While they were festive, they were also a fire hazard.

Johnson, who worked with Thomas Edison, set up a tree by the street side window of their store. Johnson hand-wired 80 red, white, and blue light bulbs, strung them together around the tree, and placed the trunk of the tree on a revolving pedestal, all powered by a generator. The lights drew a crowd as passersby stopped to gaze at the glowing marvel. Johnson turned this and the practice of doing more each year into a tradition.

At that time, a string of 16 vaguely flame-shaped bulbs sitting in brass sockets the size of shot glasses sold for $12 - about $350 in today’s money. By 1914, that same set cost just $1.75. By the 1930s, colored bulbs and cones were everywhere.

Today, an estimated 150 million light sets are sold in America each year, adding to the tangled millions stuffed into boxes each January. They light 80 million homes and consume 6 percent of the nation’s electrical load each December.  And though the contagious joy of these lights has been co-opted orange at Halloween, and red at Valentine's Day, it all started with Johnson’s miracle on 36th Street.

Curt Paul Richter was a Harvard and Johns Hopkins educated biologist, psychobiologist and geneticist, who served for many years as director of Johns Hopkins’ psychiatric clinic, where he served until becoming professor of psychobiology in 1957. 

He made many important contributions to the fields of biology and psychobiology. One of his most famous experiments involved drowning rats – a study which, today, would probably land him in jail for animal cruelty.

He knew that rats had a reputation for being able to swim for exceedingly long periods of time (in excess of 50 hours!). Yet when he placed rats in a tightly confined bucket of water, they quickly discovered they had no means of outlet, no means of relief, and literally gave up, allowing themselves to simply sink to the bottom, and drowning, on average, within about 15 minutes.

He knew they had the “physical” ability to continue swimming much longer, so concluded they must have felt both helpless and hopeless. So he tried again, this time pulling the rats from the water once he saw them beginning to struggle. He let them rest for a short time before returning them to the bucket. They once again began swimming, testing the confines of their surroundings, but instead of giving up and allowing themselves to sink and drown, they kept swimming! And swimming! And swimming! Many swam up to 60 hours until their bodies could simply no longer endure.

What was the difference between these two groups of rats? Richter concluded the difference was HOPE -- that “feeling of expectation” that a particular outcome or desire will come to pass (Google Dictionary), “to look forward to [something] with desire and reasonable confidence” (Dictionary.com).

These drowning rats had been saved once, so they were instilled with the hope – the expectation, the reasonable confidence -- of eventual rescue yet again. Sadly, their hope was misplaced. Their motivation to battle the fatigue, battle the seemingly impossible circumstances, and just keep swimming still landed them in the bottom of the bucket.

I’ve recently been struggling with what the doctor tells me is Athlete’s Foot.  You know, at this point of my life, I am glad to be associated with the word athlete no matter how uncomfortable it may be. 

So I’ve been using this over the counter stuff and it works, but when I stop using it, the Athlete's Foot immediately returns. So, I went back to my doctor and told him, “You know, I need something more powerful to kick this thing.  I'd like to completely get rid of it.” 

He said, "Ok, I’m going to give you the most powerful drug on the market." 

After I got the prescription filled, I read the little paper that came with it. It contained a list of all of the weird things this drug might do to those who administer it. 

There, I also found the results of a controlled study.  Sixty percent of the people found the drug effective.  Of course, in a controlled study, there are those who are given a placebo, instead.  Forty-four percent of those who took the placebo also found it effective.

I was amazed to read that forty-four percent of the time the placebo did the job.  That’s almost as good as the actual medication!  As I considered those numbers, I thought to myself, that is an illustration of the power of hope!