Kategori: News in English

The research team at the Atapuerca archaeological sites in Burgos, Spain, has just broken its own record by discovering, for the third time, the oldest human in Western Europe.

The team did so for the first time in 1994, when they unearthed the remains of a new human species, which they named Homo antecessor, at the TD6 level of the Gran Dolina site. These fossils, dated to around 900,000 years ago, challenged the previous notion that the earliest human presence in Western Europe was no older than half a million years.

Beyond the numbers, Homo antecessor also had a surprisingly modern-looking face. The Gran Dolina hominids exhibited a flat face that was, despite their antiquity, very similar to that of our own species, Homo sapiens. In a beautiful scientific paradox, Homo antecessor showed us the oldest face of modern humanity.

In 2007, in the Sima del Elefante (Pit of the Elephant), a site no more than 300 metres from the Gran Dolina, the oldest human in Europe was found once again. This time it was a human jawbone, found in level TE9, dated to approximately 1.2 million years ago.

The new jawbone, catalogued as ATE9-1, had a number of primitive features in the anterior part of the chin region and symphysis, which is logical given its great age. However, on the inner surface of the symphysis, the bone was vertical and more slender than expected, especially in comparison with other contemporary hominids.

Even so, the fossil was too fragmentary to be assigned to any species, or even to confirm or rule out its belonging to Homo antecessor. ATE9-1 was therefore classified as Homo sp., a term which recognised its belonging to the genus Homo, but also accepted our inability to refine it further with the evidence available at the time.

Never two without three

In 2022, against all odds, the excavation team at the Sima del Elefante site discovered the left half of a hominid face from level TE7. This fossil was found two and a half metres below the level where the ATE9-1 jawbone had been found, which meant that it was even older.

Over the following two years, our interdisciplinary and multi-institutional team – with substantial support from the Catalan Institute of Human Paleoecology and Social Evolution (IPHES) and the National Centre for the Investigation of Human Evolution (CENIEH) – devoted itself to studying and restoring the fossil.

We used both classical methods and advanced imaging techniques, including X-ray microtomography, which allowed us to visualise the interior of the fossils and manipulate them digitally without having to touch them. This meant we were able to reconstruct the puzzle, and compare it with other specimens without having to access the original fossils, which are scattered all over the world.

The new fossil was nicknamed “Pink”, an allusion to Pink Floyd’s album The Dark Side of the Moon, which translates into Spanish as “La cara oculta de la luna” – “cara oculta” means “hidden face”. I must also admit that the research team adopted this name in recognition of our colleague Rosa Huguet, researcher at IPHES-CERCA, coordinator of the work at the Sima del Elefante site, and the lead author of the study, published in the journal Nature – “Rosa” is Spanish for “pink”.

Archaeological excavation at level TE7 of the Sima del Elefante site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos).
Maria D. Guillén / IPHES-CERCA.

Pink’s rugged face

The main conclusion of study just published in Nature is that Pink does not belong to the species Homo antecessor. The new fossil presents clear differences in the facial area, which is more robust and projected forward, in clear contrast with the slender face of the Gran Dolina hominids. Furthermore, we believe that in Pink the nose area was flattened and sunken, similar to that of the species Homo erectus and other non-human primates.

However, ATE7-1, as Pink was officially catalogued, also has some characteristics that do not allow us to classify it directly as H. erectus, such as its comparatively narrower and shorter face shape.

In view of these features, the Atapuerca team has decided to classify Pink as “Homo affinis erectus” (abbreviated as H. aff. erectus). This term recognises its similarities to H. erectus, but leaves open the possibility that it may belong to another species altogether.

The value of Atapuerca

This discovery reveals the existence of a human species that, until now, had not been documented in Europe. The European Pleistocene family photo album previously included H. antecessor, Neanderthals and modern humans. We can now add the slightly blurred photograph of a new relative, in the hope that further studies and more fossils will bring it into sharper focus.

The discovery also leads us to reflect on the research that can and should be done. There is no doubt that Atapuerca is an exceptionally rich archaeological and palaeontological site. For years now, the caves in Burgos have shown their ability to capture evidence, however scarce and fragmentary, of each and every one of the periods in which Europe was inhabited.

While luck does have a part to play in Atapuerca it is, above all else, tenacity and commitment that have made it such a significant area. Nothing is left to chance, and the site is proof that when you take science seriously, it yields results. In order for research in Atapuerca to prosper, it has taken time and constant dedication, both from the researchers and from the institutions that support it and ensure its sustainability.

Let us hope that this achievement will give us the encouragement we need to continue to look towards new horizons. Läs mer…

When you come home from a run or a sweaty gym session, do you immediately fling your clothes into the washing machine for a hot cycle? Or do you leave them on a chair (or the floordrobe) so you can wear them again tomorrow?

Earlier this year, the French government caused a stir with advice about how often you should wash your clothes. For sports clothes, it recommends up to three wears before you wash them.

This stems from legitimate environmental concerns – each laundry cycle consumes significant water and energy. Frequent washing can also degrade fabrics more quickly, contributing to textile waste.

But what about our health? If the thought of rewearing your stinky t-shirt or damp sports bra makes you squeamish, here’s what you need to know.

Sports clothes and sweat

In the past, exercise clothing was usually made from natural fibres (mainly cotton). Now, it’s mostly made of high-performance synthetic fabrics. These are designed to manage moisture, regulate temperature, improve breathability and control odour.

However research has shown this kind of exercise clothing, particularly synthetic fabrics, can harbour significant amounts of bacteria after just one use.

Polyester traps moisture, creating the warm, humid micro-environments bacteria prefer.

When clothing is damp, including from sweat, bacteria multiplies substantially much faster. There is a direct correlation between how much bacteria is present and how intense the smell is.

However, research shows innovations in textiles, such as the integration of silver nanoparticles in fibres, essential oil-based treatments, long-lasting antimicrobial treatments and structural fibre innovations are are making garments more durable and better at controlling bacteria.

So, is it safe to rewear gym clothes?

This depends on several factors:

Fabric type

Natural fibres such as cotton multiply fewer odour-causing bacteria than synthetics. So if you wear these fabrics to exercise in, they may last a few wears before needing a wash.

Exercise intensity and sweat level

Low-intensity activities that generate minimal or low sweat (including gentle yoga or walking), may allow for more re-wears than high-intensity workouts, as bacterial proliferation correlates directly with moisture levels in fabrics.

(In fact, the French government advice acknowledges how often you wash your sports clothes depends on how much you sweat.)

Season

Climate (temperature, humidity and airflow) significantly affects how much bacteria grows on fabrics. So it may be more reasonable to wash your clothes less in cooler months, when you sweat less.

Personal health

Some people should exercise greater caution rewearing gym clothes. For example, people with skin conditions, compromised immune systems and those prone to skin infections.

How often you wash exercise clothes can depend on the season and how much you sweat.
Ricardo Mattei/Shutterstock

So, if you’re wearing a cotton t-shirt and shorts do something light – such as a walk in the cool morning air – you might get away with wearing them again once or twice (especially if you air them properly between use).

But synthetic performance wear, or any clothes you wear to do moderate or intense workouts, should be washed after each use (a cold wash cycle is fine). This is particularly important for garments in contact with high-bacteria areas such as underarms, groin or feet.

Tips for clothes between wears:

Turn garments inside-out (this exposes the bacteria to the air) and hang them up immediately after exercise
Ensure items are completely dry before storing
Store in well-ventilated areas, never in closed containers such as a washing hamper or bag
When possible, hang clothes in the sun – brief UV exposure provides natural antimicrobial benefits
Keep items you’ve worn away from clean clothes.

The bottom line

In the end, it’s up to personal choice – each of us has to weigh up the environmental benefits with potential health concerns and exercise habits.

But some items should always be washed after each use: sports bras and underwear, socks, anything visibly soiled or smelly, and any clothing worn during high-intensity workouts or in hot weather. Läs mer…

A battle is underway on the mine sites in Western Australia’s remote Pilbara region. Unions are keen to get back into the iron ore industry after decades on the outer. Mining companies are desperate to keep them out.

At Rio Tinto site Paraburdoo, where both residential and fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workers are employed, the Western Mine Workers Alliance announced on Thursday it had the signatures necessary to demonstrate majority support for enterprise bargaining. Over 400 workers had signed on.

Once ratified by the Fair Work Commission, the company will be obliged to negotiate an enterprise agreement with the union.

This is huge news, as enterprise agreements have been rare in the industry for many decades. Workers are generally on individual common law contracts which pay higher than the award but lack transparency and have no guaranteed yearly pay rise.

Many workers are FIFO, working 12-hour work shifts. The two weeks on, one week off roster is known colloquially as the “divorce roster”.

Unions are campaigning at Paraburdoo, as well as other Rio Tinto and BHP sites, for the option of “even time” rosters of one week on, one week off. These rosters have lower pay, however, due to working fewer hours per week on average.

Workers want better conditions

Long hours, extended periods away from home and a lack of autonomy can be a poisonous cocktail.

According to a study prepared for the WA government, about 30% of WA mining workers have “high or very high levels of psychological distress”.

Many WA mining workers operate on fly in, fly out rosters.
King Ropes Access/Shutterstock

Another study of FIFO workers mainly from WA found the likelihood of workers experiencing high or very high levels of mental distress was increased by a factor of four when they felt “very or extremely stressed by their immediate supervisors”.

The problem with insecure work

Job insecurity affects a significant proportion of the workforce. Sexual harassment plagues the industry and in some cases is linked to insecure work.

Haul truck driver Astacia Stevens testified to a parliamentary inquiry that her supervisor told her “if you want your shirt [a permanent position], you have to get on your knees first”.

She refused and was later sacked. What Stevens characterised as an anti-union culture had made her “reluctant to join” her union.

There is now an historic class action against BHP and Rio Tinto, alleging “widespread and systemic sexual harassment and gender discrimination over the past two decades” nationwide.

Unionists are also campaigning on pay, saying recent pay rises haven’t kept up with inflation.

Many workers are on contracts which may not have a guaranteed yearly pay rise.
Alan Porritt/AAP

The rise and fall of union power in the Pilbara mines

The Pilbara iron ore industry today has few union members, but used to be a bastion of militant unionism. In its periods of strength and subsequent decline, from the 1970s to the 1990s, the story of Pilbara iron ore unionism mirrors that of Australian unionism more broadly, but in an exaggerated and time-compressed way.

Unions improved work in the 1970s. Low pay, long hours, and “soggy” food were the norm when the Pilbara iron ore industry started in the 1960s. Union pressure changed this. Shifts were reduced to eight hours and workers gained a say over the work process.

Across Australia, the union movement was confident and militant in the 1970s. Yet the Pilbara was particularly so.

While the average Western Australian worker in 1973 went on strike for a quarter of a day, the average Pilbara iron ore worker struck for just over 11 days in that year.

One union delegate, interviewed as part of my PhD research, recounted:

We had industrial muscle and we used it. There was no fear.

Workers’ meetings on site would decide what issues to take up, when to strike and for how long. Often, union officials would only be told afterwards.

While strikes often provoked the ire of management and politicians, they dramatically improved workers’ lives. Unionists campaigned on community issues and even set up a cooperative during the 1979 Hamersley Iron strike.

Workers lived in towns near mine sites, and socialised together after hours, some playing sport every night of the week.

The unions were pushed out

In 1986, Robe River (now owned by Rio Tinto) broke with the other iron ore companies and launched a full-frontal attack on unions. In spite of expectations, unions did not adopt a strike strategy to defend themselves and lost out.

Two years later, amid industrial action and a divided management, Mount Newman Mining (now part of BHP) tried and failed to do the same thing. That company did not de-unionise until 1999.

During the mining boom of the 2000s, the Pilbara mines were a union wasteland, despite rebuilding efforts.

In the ten-week Hamersley Iron strike in 1979, workers staved off attacks on union influence and won a 30% pay rise.
Calistemon, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

What could a renewed union presence mean?

Just last year, BHP train drivers showed how a renewed union presence might address these issues. They are a rare example of unionisation in the industry today, as I write in my book.

On Monday February 12 2024, workers voted for a 24-hour strike on the Friday if their demands weren’t met. At 11am on the Thursday, BHP came to the table to avert the strike. Pay was increased by an initial 4%, and then 4% a year over the following four years.

Rosters are now the even time (two weeks on, two weeks off) roster the workers fought for. The agreement is based on an average 42-hour week, not the 56-hour average work week (for lower pay) that is standard for many across the industry.

This is the context in which hundreds of Pilbara workers are joining their unions and fighting for enterprise agreements. Läs mer…

Earlier this week, Saturn gained a whopping 128 new official moons, as the International Astronomical Union recognised discoveries from a team of astronomers led by Edward Ashton at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan. The sixth planet from the Sun now has a grand total of 274 moons, the most of any planet in the Solar System.

The discovery has raised a lot of questions. How do you spot moons, and why hadn’t anybody seen these ones already? Doesn’t Jupiter have the most moons? What are they going to call all these moons? Are there more out there? And what exactly makes something a moon, anyway?

Two moons, Enceladus and Janus, hover over Saturn’s rings. This image was taken by the Cassini mission.
NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

These new discoveries cement Saturn’s place as the winner of the Solar System’s moon competition, with more confirmed moons than all of the other planets combined. But it hasn’t always been this way.

Jupiter’s four largest moons – Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto – were the first ever discovered orbiting another planet. They were spotted by Galileo Galilei more than 400 years ago, in 1610. Saturn’s first known moon, Titan, was discovered by Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens 45 years later.

Jupiter’s four largest moons: Io, Europe, Ganymede and Callisto. These images were taken by the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) on the New Horizons spacecraft.
NASA/JHU-APL/Southwest Research Institute

The new batch of 128 moons was discovered by stacking images from the Canada France Hawaii telescope. Some of Saturn’s other moons were discovered by space voyages, and some during what are called “ring-plane crossings”.

When the Voyager 1 spacecraft passed by Saturn, it took images that were used to discover the moon Atlas. The Cassini Mission later discovered seven new Saturnian moons.

A ring-crossing is where Saturn’s rings seem to disappear from our point of view here on Earth. This is when Saturn is at just the right angle so we’re looking at the rings exactly side-on (that is, when we can only see the edge of the rings).

Titan was discovered during a ring-plane crossing, and so were 12 other moons. Saturn’s rings will be edge-on twice in 2025, in March and November.

Hubble Space Telescope images of the 1995 Saturn ring-plane crossing. In the lower image we can see Saturn with its ring edge-on, nearly disappearing. Two of Saturn’s moons can be seen as bright dots in the very thin ring.
Reta Beebe (New Mexico State University), D. Gilmore, L. Bergeron (STScI), NASA/ESA, Amanda S. Bosh (Lowell Observatory), Andrew S. Rivkin (Univ. of Arizona/LPL), the HST High Speed Photometer Instrument Team (R.C. Bless, PI), and NASA/ESA

The moon race

From 2019 to 2023, Jupiter and Saturn were fighting for first place in the moon race.

In 2019, Saturn surpassed Jupiter with the discovery of 20 new moons. This took the count to 82 for Saturn and 79 for Jupiter.

Just a few years later, in February 2023, Jupiter took the lead with 12 new moons, beating Saturn’s 83 moons at the time. Only a short time later, still in 2023, the same astronomers who discovered the recent 128 moons discovered 62 moons orbiting Saturn. This placed the ringed planet firmly in the lead.

Elsewhere in the Solar System, Earth has one moon, Mars has two, Jupiter has 95, Uranus has 28 and Neptune has 16, for a total of 142 moons. We only need to discover ten more moons around Saturn to give it double the number of all the other planets combined.

Regular or irregular?

The newly discovered moons are all small. Each one is only a few kilometres across. If something that small can be a moon, what really counts as a moon?

NASA tells us “naturally formed bodies that orbit planets are called moons”, but even asteroids can have moons. We crashed a spacecraft into an asteroid’s moon in 2022. Earth has had a few mini-moons, some only a couple of metres in size. The line of what is and isn’t a moon is a bit hazy.

Moons orbiting planets in the Solar System can be either “regular” or “irregular”. The new moons are all irregular.

One of Saturn’s irregular moons, Phoebe. Phoebe was discovered in 1898 and was the first irregular moon of Saturn ever discovered, This image was taken by the Cassini mission.
NASA/JPL

Regular moons are formed around a planet at the same time as the planet itself forms. Irregular moons are thought to be small planets (planetesimals) that are captured by a planet as it finishes forming. They are then broken into pieces by collisions.

Regular moons tend to orbit their planets in nice, circular orbits around the equator. Irregular moons typically orbit in big ovals further away from planets, and at a range of angles. Saturn has 24 regular moons and 250 irregular moons.

Studying these moons can tell us about how moons form, and reveal clues about how the Solar System formed and evolved.

Saturn’s rings are made of small chunks of ice and rock. Astronomers think they formed out of pieces of comets, asteroids and moons that were torn apart by Saturn’s gravity.

So for Saturn in particular, irregular moons can tell us more about the formation of its beautiful rings.

What’s in a name?

Names of astronomical objects are governed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). Originally, all moons in the Solar System were given names from Greco-Roman mythology.

But the large number of moons, particularly of Saturn and Jupiter, means the IAU has expanded to giants and gods from other mythology. And it’s all about the details. If binary moons are discovered, they are required to be given names of twins or siblings.

Saturn’s first seven moons were given numbers instead of names. In 1847, John Herschel named them after the Greek Titans. After they ran out of titans and Greek mythological giants, they expanded the naming system to include Inuit and Gallic gods and Norse giants.

Discoverers get to suggest names for moons, and the names they suggest are given priority by the IAU. In the past, there have been competitions to name new moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

With 128 new moons for Saturn, it might take a while to come up with names that follow the IAU rules. Maybe we’ll even see the addition of different mythologies. We’ll have to wait and see. Until then, each moon has a name made of a string of numbers and letters, such as “S/2020 S 27”.

An image of five of Saturn’s moons taken by Cassini. The moons from left to right are: Janus, Pandora, Enceladus, Mimas, and Rhea.
NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

Will we find more moons?

Without a solid definition of what a moon is, it’s hard to say when (or if) we will ever finish finding them. Everyone agrees we shouldn’t call every single chunk of rock in Saturn’s rings a moon, but exactly where to draw the line isn’t clear.

That said, there is probably a limit to the number of moon-like objects astronomers are likely to want to add to the list. Edward Ashton, who led the discovery of the new moons, doesn’t think we’ll be finding too many new moons until our technology improves. Läs mer…

This week, doctors announced that an Australian man with severe heart failure had left hospital with an artificial heart that had kept him alive until he could receive a donor heart.

The patient, a man from New South Wales in his 40s, was not the world’s first person to receive this type of artificial heart. However, he is said to be the first with one to be discharged from hospital to wait for a heart transplant, which he’s since had.

I am a philosopher and bioethicist. I completed my PhD on artificial hearts – particularly how these implants can change people’s lives in profound ways.

Here’s what patients and their families need to consider.

What is an artificial heart?

Artificial hearts began to be developed in the 1960s, sponsored by the United States government and funded in a similar way to space and military programs.

In 1982, a man named Barney Clark received the Jarvik-7 total artificial heart. Doctors removed his failing biological heart and replaced it with a plastic and metal device to circulate blood to his lungs and around his body. He lived for 112 days before dying from multi-organ failure. He never left hospital.

In the 1980s and 1990s, medical device companies began to develop alternatives to total artificial hearts. These partial artificial hearts, known as ventricular assist devices, help out a biological heart by supplementing or replacing one of its two pumping chambers.

These are more straightforward and versatile than total artificial hearts, and can be used for earlier stages of heart failure.

Not all artificial hearts generate a pulse.

Artificial hearts with a pulse generally mimic the biological heart. They pump blood in the same way the heart beats, by filling with blood and squeezing to circulate blood in waves or pulses.

But some devices continuously push blood around the body instead of pulsing. So with these continuous-flow devices neither the patient nor their health team can detect a pulse.

In the US between 2014 and 2024, almost 30,000 patients received continuous-flow ventricular assist devices. In the same period, more than 310 total artificial hearts were implanted.

The total artificial hearts commercially available today are licensed exclusively as bridging therapies – to keep people alive until a donor heart becomes available – rather than permanent implants.

How about the device making news this week?

The device in the news – the BiVACOR Total Artificial Heart – was developed by a US-Australian collaboration. This device is innovative, mainly because it is the first continuous-flow device designed to replace the whole heart. Designers are also aiming for it to be the first total artificial heart suitable as a permanent transplant (known as destination therapy).

A reliable, durable and responsive total artificial heart is, in the words of Paul Jansz, the surgeon who implanted the device, “the Holy Grail”.

The BiVACOR’s clinical success so far gives us reason to be optimistic about an alternative to scarce donor hearts for responding to severe heart failure.

This device is designed to replace the whole heart, and for now, is licensed as a temporary implant, ahead of a heart transplant.
BiVACOR TIQ

Transplants can change lives

However, patients do not just resume their old lives when they leave hospital with an artificial heart.

While the pumping component is inside their chest, there are also external components to manage and monitor. A thick tube perforates their abdomen and connects to an external controller unit and power supply, which the patient carries around in a bag. Controllers must be closely monitored, and batteries must be regularly recharged.

My research showed that even a perfectly safe and reliable total artificial heart could transform patients’ lives in at least three major areas.

1. Is it part of me? Do I trust it?

Patients must trust, tolerate and receive sensory feedback about how the device is working for it to feel like part of them. In the case of an artificial heart, this might mean the device feels responsive to exercise and the body’s needs.

But it may be difficult for artificial hearts to meet these criteria, especially for devices that do not generate a pulse.

Patients may also question whether their heart is located in their body, or in the controller unit. They may wonder if they even have a heart, particularly if they can’t feel a pulse.

2. Beeps and alarms

An artificial heart also changes how patients live their lives and navigate the world.

Interruptions from loud device alarms distract patients from their normal activities. And patients must switch between mains power and batteries when they wake in the night and need to visit the toilet.

3. Marking time

Our hearts may be our natural metronomes, marking time. So removing someone’s heart rhythm can confuse their sense of time.

The need for batteries to be recharged periodically can also reshape patients’ days.

Waiting around for a transplant heart, or the latest software update, may change patients’ perspectives on what months and years feel like.

We need to give patients the whole picture

Artificial hearts are remarkable devices with great promise. But patients and families also deserve to know how these extraordinary treatments might change how they feel about themselves and the world.

They need to know this before they sign up for them. Artificial hearts don’t just save lives – they also change them. Läs mer…

About 90% of flowering plants rely on animals to transfer their pollen and optimise reproduction, making pollination one of nature’s most important processes.

Bees are usually the first insects to come to mind when people think of pollinators. But many other insects – including beetles, flies, moths and butterflies – also visit flowers to feed on nectar and pollen.

In doing so, they can play an essential role in pollinating plants.

Let’s take a closer look at some of nature’s unsung insect pollinators.

Blowflies help pollinate plants.
Tanya Latty

Fabulous flies

An estimated 30,000 species of fly (Diptera) call Australia home, making them the second largest group of insects after the beetles.

Flies have a huge variety of feeding habits including flower-visiting groups such as:

blow flies (Calliphoridae)
bee flies (Bombyliidae)
hover flies (Syrphidae)
noseflies (Rhinidae) and
march flies (Tabanidae).

Blow flies often get a bad rap for their tendency to cluster on faeces and dead animals. But these amazing (and often beautiful!) animals can be important pollinators, especially in alpine regions such as the Australian Alps.

Named for their distinctive hovering flight, stripey yellow-and-black hover flies (Syrphidae) are often mistaken for bees. Hover flies are potential pollinators of several native plants.

A hoverfly feeding. Note the yellow pollen grains stuck to the thorax.
Tanya Latty

The larvae of many common hover fly species prey on pest insects such as aphids, and so play an important role in controlling pest populations.

Another group in the hover fly family, known as drone flies, have larvae that live in stagnant water.

These larvae have a long, slender breathing tube, or “snorkel” that allows them to access air from the surface, earning them the rather unflattering name “rat-tailed maggots”.

Hoverflies are helpful pollinators.
Tanya Latty

Then there are the bee flies. As the name suggests, many species of bee fly (Bombyliidae) have fuzzy, bee-like bodies. Australia boasts around 400 species of bee fly.

Bee flies feed on the nectar or pollen of many native flowering plants and so may act as pollinators.

The larvae of most bee fly species lay their eggs in or on other insects, particularly wasps and solitary bees. The larvae then feed on the insect host, usually killing it.

Being both pollinators and natural regulators of insect populations, bee flies play an important yet often overlooked role in Australia’s ecosystems.

Don’t forget frit flies and march flies

Despite being relatively common, you’ve probably never noticed tiny frit flies (Chloropidae). No, that’s not a typo; frit flies are different to fruit flies (although they are often around the same size).

There are 322 described species of frit fly in Australia, although the actual number is probably much higher as these diminutive flies are understudied.

Frit flies and their relatives, the jackal flies (Milichiidae), are believed to be the pollinators of midge orchids (Genoplesium spp), many of which are rare or threatened in Australia.

Exactly how midge orchids are attracting these tiny flies is not clear, but at least some Genoplesium species may be mimicking the smell of wounded insects.

A tiny frit fly resting in an orchid.
Tanya Latty

Biting flies can be annoying, but some are also pollinators. March flies, also known as horse flies (Tabanidae), are often disliked for their painful bites, but these large flies can act as pollinators when they visit flowers to feed on nectar and pollen. In fact, it’s only the females that eat blood to support egg development.

One species, the flower-feeding march fly (Scaptia auriflua), has abandoned blood meals altogether, feeding exclusively on nectar and pollen.

March fly larvae, which develop underground, are formidable predators. Equipped with venomous fangs, they actively hunt and subdue prey.

Friendly flower chafer beetles

Many beetle species visit flowers to feed on nectar and pollen, including the flower chafers (subfamily Cetoniinae). The flower chafer group includes beautiful beetles such as:

green (and occasionally yellow) and black fiddler beetles (Eupoecila australasiae)
big buzzy cowboy beetles (Chondropyga dorsalis), and
the delightfully spotty punctuate flower chafers (Neorrhina punctatum).

Adult flower chafers feed on the nectar and pollen of many flowering plants, especially natives such as eucalyptus and angophoras.

Adult flower chafers feed on the nectar and pollen.
Tanya Latty

Their larvae live underground, feeding on decaying organic matter. So don’t panic if you find curl grubs in your garden – they might be baby flower chafers.

Nectar scarabs (Phyllotocus spp) are another beetle frequently seen foraging on native flowers.
There are about 28 species in Australia.

Most are smaller and less conspicuous than flower chafers, although some species form large swarms on flowering trees such as Angophora, Eucalyptus and Leptospermum.

The larvae of nectar scarabs feed on decaying organic matter and grass roots in soils.

Fiddler beetles love native flowers.
Tanya Latty

Even wasps help pollinate

Unlike bees, which mostly get their protein from pollen, wasps are primarily predators, although they may act as pollinators when they visit flowers for a sip of sugary nectar.

Some Australian orchids have evolved a remarkable strategy for attracting their wasp pollinators: they deceive unsuspecting males by mimicking the scent (and sometimes shape) of female wasps. Male wasps attempt to mate with the flower, unwittingly transferring pollen in the process.

Next time you’re outside, say a silent thanks for the many unsung insect pollinators helping to keep our ecosystems healthy.

A cuckoo wasp on a flower.
Tanya Latty Läs mer…

Nearly 30 years before the Christchurch terror attacks of March 15 2019, New Zealand had to grapple with the horrors of another mass shooting. The Aramoana massacre on November 13 1990 left 13 people dead and a nation reeling.

But the firearms law changes made in the aftermath were inadequate, and the failure to tighten regulations arguably left the door open for the Christchurch atrocity – committed by a licensed firearms owner.

By contrast, after the Port Arthur massacre that killed 35 people on April 28 1996, Australia adopted fundamental changes to its firearms laws and banned semiautomatic rifles.

Later analysis suggests those reforms helped avoid a statistically likely 16 mass shootings. New Zealand didn’t match the Australian example, and it wasn’t until the Christchurch attacks that vast improvements to firearms laws were enacted.

But New Zealand still differs in significant ways from Australian federal and state models. With our Arms Act under review, and with a major rewrite due probably later this year, there are six key areas where we might learn from our nearest neighbour.

The memorial at Aramoana to the 13 people killed in the 1990 mass shooting.
Getty Images

1. Genuine reasons to own a firearm

Australia and New Zealand both treat the possession of a firearm as a legal privilege, not a right as it is in the United States. But Australia differs in that a licence applicant must show a genuine reason to possess the firearms.

This is typically associated with other requirements, such as membership of a gun club or proof of other reasons to own a firearm (such as occupational or recreational needs).

Australia also has a 28-day “cooling off” period between an applicant being granted a licence and their ability to buy a firearm.

Licensed gun owners can only buy ammunition suited to the specifically licensed firearm. Australia,
like Canada, also sets a maximum magazine capacity of ten cartridges for most handguns.

Currently, New Zealand gun laws do not carry any of these restrictions.

2. The right character referees

Like Australia, New Zealand requires firearms owners to be “fit and proper” people. But none of the eight Australian state or territorial jurisdictions accept self-nominated character referees.

Instead, they apply a more investigative approach, during which police may talk to a wider range of people to assess the suitability of applicants. Each step of the process is laid out in greater detail, such as when health risk assessments may be required.

3. A more robust firearms register

Australia has taken firearms registration – and the traceability of every gun – very seriously since the shooting of two police officers and a member of the public in an ambush attack in rural Queensland in 2022. A lack of real-time available information about the offenders was identified as a contributing factor in the tragedy.

A national firearms register, hosted by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, is under construction. This will provide front-line officers with information on owners, firearms and parts, linked to other relevant police and government data.

Unlike in New Zealand, Australian authorities do not accept sales or transfers between individual firearms owners. These must go through registered dealers, who act as brokers for the transfer, adding an extra layer of security.

But the key lesson from Australia is that to be effective, firearms registries should sit within the police, not civilian bureaucracies.

The funeral of the two police officers killed in rural Queensland in 2022. Firearms registration rules are taken very seriously.
Getty Images

4. A gradual licence system for young people

In New Zealand, an applicant for a firearms licence must be at least 16 years old. But there is no minimum age requirement for handling a firearm, only the rule that a young person must be under the “immediate supervision” of someone with a firearms licence.

There have been suggestions of adapted firearms licence safety courses in schools, which would see year 11 to 13 pupils receive initial vetting and a certificate as a stepping stone towards a full licence.

It’s a promising idea, but given the known risks of young people and violent extremism, and international experience of school shootings, this would need to be managed carefully.

An alternative might be the Australian approach, where young people are more formally brought into the licensing system with a “minor’s permit”. These are similar to a learner driver’s licence, with the aim of easing young people into responsible firearms ownership.

5. Limits on how many firearms can be owned

Large caches of fully operable firearms (unlike vintage collections, which are permanently inoperable) can attract criminal attention, for obvious reasons.

Western Australia is the first state to impose a limit on the number of firearms an individual can hold, modelled on a number of European systems. A licensed competition shooter can own ten, and a licensed hunter five.

New Zealand has no limits on how many firearms a licensed holder may possess.

6. Strong firearms prohibition orders

The New Zealand government came late to firearms prohibition orders, only realising their benefit in 2022.

These legal orders seek to prevent high-risk people from using, accessing or being around firearms. Although they have recently been augmented with greater search powers, only about 120 orders have been issued.

By comparison, since its own law was created in 1996, New South Wales has issued thousands of orders. In other words, it requires decades of work to mitigate risks to public safety.

The much needed rewrite of the Arms Act is a chance to learn from best practice around the world. Closest to home, Australia has laws, practices and proven results that should prompt us to ask, why not here?

The author thanks Clementine Annabell for assisting with the research for this article. Läs mer…

Following the recent imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs, the Australian government is coming to terms with the reality of engaging with a US ally that is increasingly transactional.

The Trump administration’s approach may signal some inclement weather ahead for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine project. But it’s far from game over.

A flurry of opinion pieces, including one penned by
a former chief of the Defence Force, has questioned US capacity to deliver on its commitments under the security pact. AUKUS sceptics are calling for a “Plan B”.

Policymakers should always reassess their foreign policy decisions as new information comes to light. However, at present, there is little conclusive evidence that AUKUS is veering off course.

Worrying about what may or may not happen to AUKUS under Trump is insufficient reason to take a wrecking ball to three years of unprecedented, generational investment in Australia’s most important defence partnership.

The ‘Plan B’ problem

Certainly, AUKUS deserves scrutiny. But clutching for alternatives, including the resurrection of the long defunct French deal, is counterproductive for several reasons.

First, it disregards the enormous investment and political will the partners have sunk into AUKUS since it was announced in September 2021. No convincing evidence has been produced to show alternative sub deals could be delivered significantly cheaper or faster. Nor would they be politically viable.

Secondly, it would destabilise an initiative that helps tether the United States to the Indo-Pacific. Australia’s defence strategy is predicated on the United States remaining essential to a favourable regional balance of power.

AUKUS has become central to Australia’s deterrence strategy, in a way that alternatives would struggle to replicate after a sudden change in course. Steadfast continuity with AUKUS seems most likely to inspire ongoing commitment to the region from the Trump administration.

Thirdly, calls to abandon AUKUS overlook the broader benefits this cooperation unlocks for Australia in the US alliance. The political momentum generated by AUKUS has created new opportunities for Australian businesses in US supply chains. Australia’s efforts in advanced technologies and guided weapons have also been empowered.

The replacement of the existing Collins class fleet with nuclear subs will cost up to A$368 billion by mid-century.
Richard Wainwright/AAP

AUKUS is bigger than a single arms agreement. The broad implications of revising, or even dumping, the deal must be understood accordingly.

Trump’s AUKUS

President Donald Trump’s apparent confusion about AUKUS, and his treatment of European allies, has understandably fomented hand-wringing about the future of the deal. Still, an undertaking this central to Australia’s long-term defence merits a pragmatic approach, rather than alarm.

There is cause to feel cautiously optimistic about AUKUS under Trump. Key personnel across the administration – including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – have expressed their support.

Trump has promised renewed focus on growing the US industrial base by establishing a new White House shipbuilding office and a maritime action plan. These could set the United States on a firmer footing to meet the production targets tied to the Australian submarine sales.

US Studies Centre analysis reinforces the willingness of key figures in Congress to reform export controls and acquisition policy to see AUKUS succeed, pending improvements to US industrial capacity.

The effectiveness of recent investment cycles in the US submarine base is still to be determined. But Canberra has agency here. Washington is looking, in part, to Australia for answers to prevailing challenges.

Numerous components for US submarines are currently sourced from a single supplier. Achieving supply chain resilience will depend on seeking out alternate manufacturers, including from Australian industry, for valves, pumps, steel and beyond.

Donald Trump’s unpredictability, including on trade and Ukraine, have sparked calls for a rethink of the AUKUS treaty.
Jacquelyn Martin/AAP

From the Australian government’s recently announced A$800 million investment in the US industrial base to the 129 Australian shipbuilders undergoing specialised training in Pearl Harbour, AUKUS will benefit the US in ways that have perhaps been understated.

Australia’s AUKUS challenge

At present, there is little evidence to suggest the Trump administration will tear up the pact. Nonetheless, Australia must remain alert to obstacles that may arise in the partnership.

Trump may seek to elicit additional financial contributions from Australia by trying to cut a better deal than his predecessor.

Unanticipated costs could be absorbed by an existing contingency fund. However, greater investment in AUKUS would risk crowding out competing programs in the Australian defence budget.

In addition, any potential breach between the collaborative spirit of AUKUS and the administration’s transactional instincts could create headaches for Australian stakeholders.

Perceptions AUKUS could be leveraged in strategic competition with China may buoy support for the pact in Congress. But Australian policymakers must communicate a broader strategic rationale for AUKUS that resonates more strongly here at home.

The Australian government will need to adapt its approach to AUKUS cooperation to weather the new political climate. To minimise risks, Australia should continue to strengthen other defence partnerships and embrace greater defence self-reliance, as the “Plan B” commentators suggest.

AUKUS isn’t perfect. But it will endure and continue to be Australia’s best bet. Läs mer…

Following the recent imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs, the Australian government is coming to terms with the reality of engaging with a US ally that is increasingly transactional.

The Trump administration’s approach may signal some inclement weather ahead for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine project. But it’s far from game over.

A flurry of opinion pieces, including one penned by
a former chief of the Defence Force, has questioned US capacity to deliver on its commitments under the security pact. AUKUS sceptics are calling for a “Plan B”.

Policymakers should always reassess their foreign policy decisions as new information comes to light. However, at present, there is little conclusive evidence that AUKUS is veering off course.

Worrying about what may or may not happen to AUKUS under Trump is insufficient reason to take a wrecking ball to three years of unprecedented, generational investment in Australia’s most important defence partnership.

The ‘Plan B’ problem

Certainly, AUKUS deserves scrutiny. But clutching for alternatives, including the resurrection of the long defunct French deal, is counterproductive for several reasons.

First, it disregards the enormous investment and political will the partners have sunk into AUKUS since it was announced in September 2021. No convincing evidence has been produced to show alternative sub deals could be delivered significantly cheaper or faster. Nor would they be politically viable.

Secondly, it would destabilise an initiative that helps tether the United States to the Indo-Pacific. Australia’s defence strategy is predicated on the United States remaining essential to a favourable regional balance of power.

AUKUS has become central to Australia’s deterrence strategy, in a way that alternatives would struggle to replicate after a sudden change in course. Steadfast continuity with AUKUS seems most likely to inspire ongoing commitment to the region from the Trump administration.

Thirdly, calls to abandon AUKUS overlook the broader benefits this cooperation unlocks for Australia in the US alliance. The political momentum generated by AUKUS has created new opportunities for Australian businesses in US supply chains. Australia’s efforts in advanced technologies and guided weapons have also been empowered.

The replacement of the existing Collins class fleet with nuclear subs will cost up to A$368 billion by mid-century.
Richard Wainwright/AAP

AUKUS is bigger than a single arms agreement. The broad implications of revising, or even dumping, the deal must be understood accordingly.

Trump’s AUKUS

President Donald Trump’s apparent confusion about AUKUS, and his treatment of European allies, has understandably fomented hand-wringing about the future of the deal. Still, an undertaking this central to Australia’s long-term defence merits a pragmatic approach, rather than alarm.

There is cause to feel cautiously optimistic about AUKUS under Trump. Key personnel across the administration – including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – have expressed their support.

Trump has promised renewed focus on growing the US industrial base by establishing a new White House shipbuilding office and a maritime action plan. These could set the United States on a firmer footing to meet the production targets tied to the Australian submarine sales.

US Studies Centre analysis reinforces the willingness of key figures in Congress to reform export controls and acquisition policy to see AUKUS succeed, pending improvements to US industrial capacity.

The effectiveness of recent investment cycles in the US submarine base is still to be determined. But Canberra has agency here. Washington is looking, in part, to Australia for answers to prevailing challenges.

Numerous components for US submarines are currently sourced from a single supplier. Achieving supply chain resilience will depend on seeking out alternate manufacturers, including from Australian industry, for valves, pumps, steel and beyond.

Donald Trump’s unpredictability, including on trade and Ukraine, have sparked calls for a rethink of the AUKUS treaty.
Jacquelyn Martin/AAP

From the Australian government’s recently announced A$800 million investment in the US industrial base to the 129 Australian shipbuilders undergoing specialised training in Pearl Harbour, AUKUS will benefit the US in ways that have perhaps been understated.

Australia’s AUKUS challenge

At present, there is little evidence to suggest the Trump administration will tear up the pact. Nonetheless, Australia must remain alert to obstacles that may arise in the partnership.

Trump may seek to elicit additional financial contributions from Australia by trying to cut a better deal than his predecessor.

Unanticipated costs could be absorbed by an existing contingency fund. However, greater investment in AUKUS would risk crowding out competing programs in the Australian defence budget.

In addition, any potential breach between the collaborative spirit of AUKUS and the administration’s transactional instincts could create headaches for Australian stakeholders.

Perceptions AUKUS could be leveraged in strategic competition with China may buoy support for the pact in Congress. But Australian policymakers must communicate a broader strategic rationale for AUKUS that resonates more strongly here at home.

The Australian government will need to adapt its approach to AUKUS cooperation to weather the new political climate. To minimise risks, Australia should continue to strengthen other defence partnerships and embrace greater defence self-reliance, as the “Plan B” commentators suggest.

AUKUS isn’t perfect. But it will endure and continue to be Australia’s best bet. Läs mer…

The Albert Park circuit for the Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix has 14 turns over 5.278 kilometres. F1 drivers can tell you the braking points, cornering speeds and preferred line for every one of those corners without actually being there.

How?

A demanding profession

Formula 1 drivers are unique athletes: typically, they are fitter, stronger, shorter and have lower body fat percentages than drivers in other racing sports.

In the early years, drivers were bigger and stronger so they could wrestle cars without power steering. Now, they are shorter, leaner and incredibly fit to deal with the increased G-forces from higher cornering speeds in modern cars.

Beyond the physical demands of F1 racing – like cornering G-forces in excess of 5Gs, the 600 newton forces needed to operate the brake pedal and cockpit temperatures that can exceed 50°C – drivers are subjected to high cognitive demands.

These include synthesising information about the track conditions, opponents and their environment, to help them to anticipate and execute precision driving.

In the past, F1 teams had unlimited opportunities to test cars and athletes on the track: some drivers accrued more than 100,000 km of testing across their careers.

But since 2009, F1 drivers and teams have been limited in the number of testing days and kilometres.

In 2025, drivers will only be allowed to take part in four test days, and they will be restricted to a total of 1,000 km.

The advancement of technology

Following these changes, teams have focused on technology to train drivers and test cars.

Simulators provide drivers and teams with additional testing not otherwise available under current rules.

Drivers typically have access to “factory” simulators owned by their team. These provide an experience as close to actually driving an F1 as you can get without being in the car.

They allow teams and drivers to change almost every aspect of the environment – car setup, tyre wear and even track temperature and humidity.

Drivers will also have a “home” simulator made up of multiple monitors, a steering wheel with force feedback and pedals.

These are used mostly for learning tracks and identifying racing lines, rather than for testing specific car setups.

The benefits of this technology

Arguably, the greatest benefit is safety: crashing a car in an F1 simulator won’t hurt the driver or damage an actual car.

Modern methods and mathematics allow teams to simulate damage without the costs associated with traditional crash testing.

Advanced racing simulators are expensive, costing up to £8M ($A15.9 million). But by eliminating the need for fuel, tyres and track hire, they significantly reduce expenses.

Drivers can also refine their skills, familiarise themselves with circuits and practise high-risk manoeuvres in a risk-free environment.

Simulators enable drivers to hone their overtaking and defensive manoeuvres by adjusting variables such as track conditions, the number of AI-cars on track, AI-car aggression and proximity.

This controlled yet dynamic training enhances problem-solving, sharpens reaction times and strengthens strategic decision-making.

These are all crucial for real-world racing.

At a track, it may take upwards of 20 minutes to make a single change to the settings on a car. In a simulator, changes can be made in seconds.

This allows teams to take a car to the race track with a tested set-up, ready for practice sessions where they can experiment with strategies including engine maps, fuel strategies and pit-stop timing.

Post-race, teams use simulators to analyse performance data, identify potential improvements and gain insights for future races and car development.

What might the future hold?

Electronic racing (e-racing) is a virtual form of motorsport where competitors drive a computer-generated car on a virtual track.

There are three typical sub-types of e-racing:

sim racing (using realistic physics, tyre wear, fuel consumption and damage)
simcade (incorporating some realistic elements but with reduced complexity)
arcade racing (using simpler controls and physics like Mario Kart).

These online and electronic variants have surged in popularity, bridging the gap between virtual and real-world motorsport.

This is showcased in the movie Gran Turismo. It tells the true story of Jann Mardenborough, who transitioned from simulator racing to professional motorsport after winning a competition in 2011.

However, while simulators provide a controlled environment for skill development, they lack factors such as psychological and emotional stress, g-forces, thermal strain, and the unpredictable elements that exist in real-world competition.

Despite these differences, e-racing has gained credibility, with several F1 drivers regularly competing in virtual events.

Four-time F1 world champion Max Verstappen, for example, is also one of the best simulator racers in the world. He uses virtual racing to sharpen his skills and remain competitive between real-world races.

As e-racing continues to evolve, the role of simulators remains a key area of exploration.

Advancements in simulator technology — including enhanced motion feedback, physiological stress replication and AI-driven race dynamics – may further bridge the gap between virtual and real-world racing.

The question is no longer whether simulators can aid driver development but how they can be refined to better replicate the demands of on-track competition, ultimately shaping the future of motorsport training and performance. Läs mer…