Whooping cough (pertussis) is always circulating in Australia, and epidemics are expected every three to four years. However, the numbers we’re seeing with the current surge – which started in 2024 – are higher than usual epidemics.

Vaccines for this highly infectious respiratory infection have been available in Australia for many decades. Yet it remains a challenging infection to control because immunity (due to prior infection, or vaccination) wanes with time.

In 2025, more than 14,000 cases have been recorded already. Some regions, including Queensland and Western Australia’s Kimberley region, are seeing a marked rise in cases.

In 2024, more than 57,000 cases of whooping cough were reported in Australia – the highest yearly total since 1991 – including 25,900 in New South Wales alone.

What is causing the current surge?

A few factors are driving numbers higher than we’d expect for an anticipated epidemic.

COVID lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 reduced natural immunity to many diseases, disrupted routine childhood vaccination services, and resulted in rising distrust in vaccines. This has meant higher-than-usual numbers for many infectious diseases.

And it’s not only Australia witnessing this surge.

In the United States, whooping cough cases are at their highest since 1948, with deaths reported in several states, including two infants.

In Australia, vaccine coverage remains relatively high but it is slipping and is below the national target of 95% .

Even small declines may have a significant impact on infection rates.

Who is at risk of whooping cough?

Young babies, especially those under six weeks of age, are extremely vulnerable to whooping cough because they’re too young to be vaccinated.

Infants under six months of age are also more likely to require hospitalisation for breathing support or have severe outcomes such as pneumonia, seizures or brain inflammation . Some do not survive.

However, the greatest number of cases occur in older children and adults. In fact, in 2024, more than 70% of cases occurred in children 10 years and older, and adults.

Can you get whooping cough even if you’re vaccinated?

The whooping cough vaccine works well, but its protection fades with time. Babies are immunised at six weeks, four months and six months, which gives good protection against severe illness.

But without extra (booster) doses, that protection drops, falling to less than 50% by four years of age. That’s why booster doses at 18 months and four years are essential for maintaining protection against the disease.

A whooping cough vaccine is also recommended for any adult who wishes to reduce the likelihood of becoming ill with pertussis. Carers of young infants, in particular, should have a booster dose if they’ve not received one in the past ten years.

A booster dose is also recommended every ten years for health-care workers and early childhood educators.

One of the best ways we can protect babies from the life-threatening illness of whooping cough is vaccination during pregnancy, which transfers protective antibodies to the unborn baby.

If a woman hasn’t received a vaccine during pregnancy, they can be vaccinated as soon as possible after delivery (preferably before hospital discharge). This won’t pass protective immunity to the baby, but reduces the likelihood of the mother getting whooping cough, providing some indirect protection to the infant.

How contagious is whooping cough?

Whooping cough is extremely contagious – in fact, it is up to ten times more contagious than the flu.

If you’re immunised against whooping cough, you’re likely to have milder symptoms. But you can still catch and spread it, including to babies who have not yet been immunised.

Data shows siblings (and not parents) are one of the most common sources of whooping cough infection in babies.

This highlights the importance of on-time vaccination not just during pregnancy, but also in siblings and other close contacts.

How do I know it’s whooping cough, and not just a cold?

Early symptoms of whooping cough can look just like a cold: a runny nose, mild fever, and a persistent cough.

After about a week, the cough often worsens, coming in long fits that may end with a sharp “whoop” as the person gasps for breath.

In very young babies, there may be no whoop at all. They might briefly stop breathing (called an “apnoea”) or turn blue.

In teens and adults, the only sign may be a stubborn cough (the so-called “100-day” cough) that won’t go away.

If you have whooping cough, you may be infectious for up to three weeks after symptoms begin, unless treated with antibiotics (which can shorten this to five days).

You’ll need to stay home from work, school or childcare during this time to help protect others.

What should I do to reduce my risk?

Start by checking your vaccination record. This can be done through the myGov website, the Express Plus Medicare app or by asking your GP.

If you’re pregnant, get a whooping cough booster in your second trimester. A booster is also important if you’re planning to care for young infants or meet a newborn.

Got a cough that lasts more than a week or comes in fits? Ask your GP about testing.

One quick booster could help stop the next outbreak from reaching you or your loved ones.

Niall Johnston, Conjoint Associate Lecturer, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney; Helen Quinn, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance & Senior Lecturer, Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, and Phoebe Williams, Paediatrician & Infectious Diseases Physician; Senior Lecturer & NHMRC Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As winter settles over Australia, it’s not just the drop in temperature we notice – there’s also a sharp rise in respiratory illnesses. Most of us are familiar with the usual winter players such as COVID, influenza and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), which often dominate news headlines and public health messaging.

But scientists are now paying closer attention to another virus that’s been spreading somewhat under the radar: human metapneumovirus (hMPV).

Although it’s not new, hMPV is now being recognised as a significant contributor to seasonal respiratory infections, especially among young children, older people, and people with weaker immune systems.

So what do you need to know about this winter lurgy?

What does a hMPV infection look like?

hMPV is a close relative of RSV, and can cause infections in the upper or lower respiratory tracts.

Like other respiratory viruses, hMPV infection causes symptoms such as cough, fever, sore throat and nasal congestion. While most people experience relatively mild illness and recover in about a week, hMPV can lead to serious illness – such as bronchiolitis or pneumonia – in babies, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems.

hMPV spreads much like the flu or SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) – through tiny droplets from coughs and sneezes, and potentially by touching surfaces where the virus has landed and then touching your mouth, nose, or eyes.

Most people will catch it at some point in their lives, commonly more than once. While an infection confers some immunity, this wanes over time.

hMPV generally follows a seasonal pattern, tending to peak in winter and spring.

hMPV around the world

By the end of 2024, China saw a surprising spike in cases of hMPV – enough to catch the attention of public health experts. While there were some suggestions hospitals were becoming overwhelmed, exact numbers were not clear.

The World Health Organization subsequently issued a statement in January indicating this rise in hMPV infections in China aligned with expected seasonal trends.

Other countries, such as the United States, have also noted increases in hMPV infections since the COVID pandemic. Realising hMPV might be playing a more significant role in seasonal illness than we’d previously thought, and with improvements in diagnostic technology, global health agencies have ramped up their monitoring.

In Australia, comprehensive national data on hMPV is limited because hMPV is not one of the viruses with mandatory reporting. In other words, if a patient is found to have hMPV (through a PCR swab sent to a pathology lab) there’s no requirement for the doctor or the pathology lab to make a public health report of a positive result, as they would with another illness such as influenza, RSV or measles.

However, selected medical clinics voluntarily participate in systematic data collection on specific health conditions, which give us an idea of the proportion of people of people who may be infected (though not the absolute numbers).

The Australian Sentinel Practice Research Network (ASPREN) is a national surveillance system funded by the federal department of health. In 2024, up to December 15, based on ASPREN data, 7.8% of patients presenting with fever and cough symptoms tested positive for hMPV.

This year, to June 1, ASPREN data shows us hMPV has made up 4.2% of infections among people with flu-like illness, behind RSV (7.7%), COVID (10.9%), influenza (19%) and rhinovirus (a virus which causes the common cold, 46.1%).

What about vaccines and treatments?

hMPV is likely to be part of the array of respiratory viruses circulating in Australia this winter. If you have a cold or flu-like illness and have done one of those at-home rapid tests for COVID, flu and RSV but came up all negative, it’s possible hMPV is the culprit.

There’s currently no specific treatment or vaccine for hMPV. Most cases are mild and can be managed at home with rest and symptom relief such as taking medication (paracetamol or ibuprofen) for pain and fever. But more serious infections may require hospital care.

If your baby or young child has a respiratory infection and is having trouble breathing, you should take them to the emergency department.

Researchers and companies such as Moderna, Pfizer and Vicebio are actively working on vaccines for hMPV, however they’re not yet available.

The best way to protect yourself and others against hMPV and other respiratory viruses is through simple hygiene practices. These include washing your hands often, covering coughs and sneezes, staying home if you’re sick, cleaning shared surfaces regularly, and considering wearing a mask in crowded indoor spaces during virus season.

Lara Herrero, Associate Professor and Research Leader in Virology and Infectious Disease, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A persistent cough can be embarrassing, especially if people think you have COVID.

Coughing frequently can also make you physically tired, interfere with sleep and trigger urinary incontinence. As a GP, I have even treated patients whose repetitive forceful coughing has caused stress fractures in their ribs.

So, why do some coughs linger so long? Here are some of the most common causes – and signs you should get checked for something more serious.

Why do we cough?

The cough reflex is an important protective mechanism. Forcefully expelling air helps clear our lungs and keep them safe from irritants, infections and the risk of choking.

Some people who have long-term conditions, such as chronic bronchitis or bronchiectasis, have to cough frequently. This is because the lung’s cilia – tiny hair-like structures that move mucus, debris and germs – no longer work to clear the lungs.

A wet or “productive” cough means coughing up a lot of mucus.

A cough can also be dry or “unproductive”. This happens when the cough receptors in the airways, throat and upper oesophagus have become overly sensitised, triggering a cough even when there’s no mucus to clear.

Causes of a chronic cough

A cough is considered chronic when it lasts longer than eight weeks in adults, or four weeks in children.

The three most common causes are:

• post-nasal drip (where mucus drips from the back of the nose into the throat)
• asthma
• acid reflux from the stomach.

These often go together. One study found 23% of people with chronic cough had two of these conditions, and 3% had all three.

This makes sense – people prone to airway allergies are more likely to develop both asthma and hayfever (allergic rhinitis). Hayfever is probably the main cause of persistent post-nasal drip.

Meanwhile, prolonged, vigorous coughing can also cause reflux, possibly triggering further coughing.

Chronic cough is the primary symptom of two other conditions, although these can be more challenging to diagnose: cough-variant asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis. Both conditions inflame the airways. However, they don’t rapidly improve with ventolin (the standard clinic test to diagnose asthma).

Coughs after respiratory infections

Coughs can also persist long after a viral or bacterial infection. In children with colds, one systematic review found it took 25 days for more than 90% to be free of their cough.

After an infection, cough hypersensitivity may develop thanks to inflamed airways and over-responsive cough receptors. Even minor irritants will then trigger the coughing reflex.

The body’s response to infection makes the mucus more sticky – and more difficult for the overworked, recovering cilia to clear. Allergens in the air can also more easily penetrate the upper airway’s damaged lining.

This can trigger an unhelpful feedback loop that slows the body’s recovery after an infection. Excessive and unhelpful coughing tends to further fatigue the recovering cilia and irritate the airway lining.

Could I still have an infection?

When a cough persists, a common concern is whether a secondary bacterial infection has followed the first viral infection, requiring antibiotics.

Simply coughing up yellow or green phlegm is not enough to tell.

To diagnose a serious chest infection, your doctor will consider the whole picture of your symptoms. For example, whether you also have shortness of breath, worsening fever or your lungs make abnormal sounds through a stethoscope.

The possibility you have undiagnosed asthma or allergies should also be considered.

What treats a persistent cough?

People with a persistent cough who are otherwise healthy may request and be prescribed antibiotics. But these rarely shorten how long your cough lasts, as irritation – not infection – is the primary cause of cough.

The most effective treatments for shifting sticky mucus from the airways are simple ones: saline nose sprays and washes, steam inhalation and medicated sore throat sprays.

Honey has also been shown to reduce throat irritation and the need to cough.

The effectiveness of cough syrup is less clear. As these mixtures have potential side effects, they should be used with care.

Signs of something more serious

Sometimes, a cough that won’t go away could be the sign of a serious condition, including lung cancer or unusual infections. Fortunately, these aren’t common.

To rule them out, Australia’s chronic cough guidelines recommend a chest x-ray and spirometry (which tests lung volume and flow) for anyone presenting to their doctor with a chronic cough.

You should seek prompt medical attention if, in addition to your cough, you:

• cough up blood
• produce a lot of phlegm
• are very short of breath, especially when resting or at night
• have difficulty swallowing
• lose weight or have a fever
• have recurring pneumonia
• are a smoker older than 45, with a new or changed cough.

What if there’s no clear cause?

Very occasionally, despite thorough testing and treatment, a cough persists. This is called refractory chronic cough.

When no cause can be identified, it’s known as unexplained chronic cough. In the past, unexplained cough may have been diagnosed as a “psychogenic” or “habit” cough, a term which has fallen from favour.

We now understand that cough hypersensitivity makes a person cough out of proportion to the trigger, and that both the peripheral and central nervous systems play a role in this. But our understanding of the relationship between hypersensitivity and chronic cough remains incomplete.

These are disabling conditions and should be referred to a respiratory clinic or a chronic cough specialist. Speech pathology treatments may also be effective for refractory and unexplained coughs.

There are a class of new medications in the pipeline that block cough receptors, and seem promising for persisting, troublesome coughs.

David King, Senior Lecturer in General Practice, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Measles has been rising globally in recent years. There were an estimated 10.3 million cases worldwide in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022.

Outbreaks are being reported all over the world including in the United States, Europe and the Western Pacific region (which includes Australia). For example, Vietnam has reportedly seen thousands of cases in 2024 and 2025.

In Australia, 77 cases of measles have been recorded in the first five months of 2025, compared with 57 cases in all of 2024.

Measles cases in Australia are almost all related to international travel. They occur in travellers returning from overseas, or are contracted locally after mixing with an infected traveller or their contacts.

Measles most commonly affects children and is preventable with vaccination, given in Australia in two doses at 12 and 18 months old. But in light of current outbreaks globally, is there a case for reviewing the timing of measles vaccinations?

Some measles basics

Measles is caused by a virus belonging to the genus Morbillivirus. Symptoms include a fever, cough, runny nose and a rash. While it presents as a mild illness in most cases, measles can lead to severe disease requiring hospitalisation, and even death. Large outbreaks can overwhelm health systems.

Measles can have serious health consequences, such as in the brain and the immune system, years after the infection.

Measles spreads from person to person via small respiratory droplets that can remain suspended in the air for two hours. It’s highly contagious – one person with measles can spread the infection to 12–18 people who aren’t immune.

Because measles is so infectious, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two-dose vaccination coverage above 95% to stop the spread and achieve “herd immunity”.

Low and declining vaccine coverage, especially since the COVID pandemic, is driving global outbreaks.

When are children vaccinated against measles?

Newborn babies are generally protected against measles thanks to maternal antibodies. Maternal antibodies get passed from the mother to the baby via the placenta and in breast milk, and provide protection against infections including measles.

The WHO advises everyone should receive two doses of measles vaccination. In places where there’s a lot of measles circulating, children are generally recommended to have the first dose at around nine months old. This is because it’s expected maternal antibodies would have declined significantly in most infants by that age, leaving them vulnerable to infection.

If maternal measles antibodies are still present, the vaccine is less likely to produce an immune response.

Research has also shown a measles vaccine given at less than 8.5 months of age can result in an antibody response which declines more quickly. This might be due to interference with maternal antibodies, but researchers are still trying to understand the reasons for this.

A second dose of the vaccine is usually given 6–9 months later. A second dose is important because about 10–15% of children don’t develop antibodies after the first vaccine.

In settings where measles transmission is under better control, a first dose is recommended at 12 months of age. Vaccination at 12 months compared with nine months is considered to generate a stronger, longer-lasting immune response.

In Australia, children are routinely given the measles-mumps- rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 months and the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV, with “varicella” being chickenpox) vaccine at 18 months.

Babies at higher risk of catching the disease can also be given an additional early dose. In Australia, this is recommended for infants as young as six months when there’s an outbreak or if they’re travelling overseas to a high-risk setting.

A new study looking at measles antibodies in babies

A recent review looked at measles antibody data from babies under nine months old living in low- and middle-income countries. The review combined the results from 20 studies, including more than 8,000 babies. The researchers found that while 81% of newborns had maternal antibodies to measles, only 30% of babies aged four months had maternal antibodies.

This study suggests maternal antibodies to measles decline much earlier than previously thought. It raises the question of whether the first dose of measles vaccine is given too late to maximise infants’ protection, especially when there’s a lot of measles around.

Should we bring the measles vaccine forward in Australia?

All of the data in this study comes from low- and middle-income countries, and might not reflect the situation in Australia where we have much higher vaccine coverage for measles, and very few cases.

Australia’s coverage for two doses of the MMR vaccine at age two is above 92%.

Although this is lower than the optimal 95%, the overall risk of measles surging in Australia is relatively low.

Nonetheless, there may be a case for broadening the age at which an early extra dose of the measles vaccine can be given to children at higher risk. In New Zealand, infants as young as four months can receive a measles vaccine before travelling to an endemic country.

But the current routine immunisation schedule in Australia is unlikely to change.

Adding an extra dose to the schedule would be costly and logistically difficult. Lowering the age for the first dose may have some advantages in certain settings, and doesn’t pose any safety concerns, but further evidence would be required to support this change. In particular, research is needed to ensure it wouldn’t negatively affect the longer-term protection that vaccination offers from measles.

Making sure you’re protected

In the meantime, ensuring high levels of measles vaccine coverage with two doses is a global priority.

People born after 1966 are recommended to have two doses of measles vaccine. This is because those born before the mid-1960s likely caught measles as children (when the vaccine was not yet available) and would therefore have natural immunity.

If you’re unsure about your vaccination status, you can check this through the Australian Immunisation Register. If you don’t have a documented record, ask your doctor for advice.

Catch-up vaccination is available under the National Immunisation Program.

Meru Sheel, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney and Anita Heywood, Associate Professor, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cricket’s third World Test Championship final will begin on Wednesday night in London. Reigning champions Australia will compete with South Africa to be crowned the world’s best men’s Test cricket team.

This new tournament has faced controversy because of the points system used to determine the two finalists, with South Africa also criticised in recent years for allowing many key players to compete in T20 tournaments instead of Test matches.

Despite this, South Africa has earned its right to take on the Australians at Lord’s Cricket Ground.

What is the World Test Championship?

The World Test Championship is a tournament played between nine full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC): Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies.

The previous winners were New Zealand (2021) and Australia (2023).

The ICC introduced this tournament as a way to increase the relevance and importance of Test cricket in a world dominated by popular Twenty 20 tournaments such as the Big Bash and Indian Premier League.

Each country plays three series of between two and five Test matches at home, and three away.

The tournament takes two years to complete because each Test match can take five days and there are no dedicated times for Test match cricket throughout the year. This is because many cricketers also play in T20 and one-day tournaments.

Teams are awarded points for wins (12 points), ties (six) and draws (four) – there are zero points for a loss. Teams lose points if they bowl their overs too slowly.

While this point system is simple enough, ranking teams in the results table is more confusing, because some teams play more Tests than others.

Bigger, wealthier countries such as England, India and Australia commonly play four or five Tests in a series, whereas less affluent countries often play series with only two or three Tests.

Because of this difference, the results table is based on the percentage of points teams have won (how many points they won divided by how many points they could have won).

For example, if a team played ten tests, the maximum points they could earn would be 120 (10 x 12 points for each win). If they earned 60 points, then they would be ranked on the results table as winning 50% (60 divided by 120).

How did Australia and South Africa reach the final?

South Africa finished on top of the table by winning series against the West Indies, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. They also drew with India and lost to New Zealand.

Australia beat Pakistan and India at home and New Zealand and Sri Lanka away. They also drew series with England (away) and the West Indies (home).

The final will be played at the “home of cricket”: Lord’s in London.

Neutral territory

Test matches are rarely played at neutral venues but the World Test Championship final is played in England for a variety of reasons.

The current two-year World Test Championship cycle ends in June, which is early summer in England and winter or monsoon season in most other major cricket nations.

England also offers good infrastructure, strong crowds, a time zone that aligns favourably with prime time viewing hours in India, and pitches that offer a fair contest between bat and ball, allowing for exciting and competitive cricket.

Despite these reasons, the repeated scheduling of finals in England has been criticised, predominantly by India.

Criticisms of the championship

South Africa’s qualification for the final has been criticised because they have played the least number of Tests and avoided playing some stronger teams.

While these criticisms are not unfounded, they are also not South Africa’s fault: the ICC is responsible for ensuring scheduling is fair.

Richer countries such as Australia, England and India face a dilemma in that five-Test series between them are generally high quality, exciting and profitable but are also difficult to win.

Smaller nations playing two-Test series receive less interest and money but also easier opponents and less fixture fatigue. This situation can make it easier for smaller, less affluent teams to have a higher winning percentage.

Other criticisms have focused on the points deductions for slow overs and the exclusion of Test playing nations Afghanistan, Ireland and Zimbabwe. When the World Test Championship was launched in 2019, only the nine full members were included. No specific reasons were given for the exclusion of Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland.

Including these countries and having two six-team divisions – with teams being relegated and promoted each year – has been suggested as way to make the Test championship more fair and more competitive.

However, this idea has also been criticised as focusing on profits instead of protecting and nurturing the game around the world.

These deductions and divisions, and other potential changes, were considered at a recent ICC meeting but no changes were made.

Final preparations

Australian players have prepared for the final in a variety of ways, such as playing in the IPL, county cricket in the United Kingdom and practice sessions at home.

They are favourites for the final and have a strong squad to choose from.

South Africa also has a strong team with several key players returning from injuries and a drugs ban.

A win for Australia would solidify its standing as the premier Test cricket team in the world. For South Africa, a victory would showcase a remarkable turnaround after being criticised for picking a weak squad for a tour of New Zealand, with most of its better players instead competing in T20 tournaments.

There is also record prize money at stake.

If the match is a draw, tie or washed out, Australia and South Africa will share the trophy. But there is a reserve day available in case of wet weather.

Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The enamel that forms the outer layer of our teeth might seem like an unlikely place to find clues about evolution. But it tells us more than you’d think about the relationships between our fossil ancestors and relatives.

In our new study, published in the Journal of Human Evolution, we highlight a different aspect of enamel. In fact, we highlight its absence.

Specifically, we show that tiny, shallow pits in fossil teeth may not be signs of malnutrition or disease. Instead, they may carry surprising evolutionary significance.

You might be wondering why this matters. Well, for people like me who try to figure out how humans evolved and how all our ancestors and relatives were related to each other, teeth are very important. And having a new marker to look out for on fossil teeth could give us a new tool to help fit together our family tree.

Uniform, circular and shallow

These pits were first identified in the South African species Paranthropus robustus, a close relative of our own genus Homo. They are highly consistent in shape and size: uniform, circular and shallow.

Initially, we thought the pits might be unique to P. robustus. But our latest research shows this kind of pitting also occurs in other Paranthropus species in eastern Africa. We even found it in some Australopithecus individuals, a genus that may have given rise to both Homo and Paranthropus.

The enamel pits have commonly been assumed to be defects resulting from stresses such as illness or malnutrition during childhood. However, their remarkable consistency across species, time and geography suggests these enamel pits may be something more interesting.

The pitting is subtle, regularly spaced, and often clustered in specific regions of the tooth crown. It appears without any other signs of damage or abnormality.

Two million years of evolution

We looked at fossil teeth from hominins (humans and our closest extinct relatives) from the Omo Valley in Ethiopia, where we can see traces of more than two million years of human evolution, as well as comparisons with sites in southern Africa (Drimolen, Swartkrans and Kromdraai).

The Omo collection includes teeth attributed to Paranthropus, Australopithecus and Homo, the three most recent and well-known hominin genera. This allowed us to track the telltale pitting across different branches of our evolutionary tree.

What we found was unexpected. The uniform pitting appears regularly in both eastern and southern Africa Paranthropus, and also in the earliest eastern African Australopithecus teeth dating back around 3 million years. But among southern Africa Australopithecus and our own genus, Homo, the uniform pitting was notably absent.

A defect … or just a trait?

If the uniform pitting were caused by stress or disease, we might expect it to correlate with tooth size and enamel thickness, and to affect both front and back teeth. But it doesn’t.

What’s more, stress-related defects typically form horizontal bands. They usually affect all teeth developing at the time of the stress, but this is not what we see with this pitting.

We think this pitting probably has a developmental and genetic origin. It may have emerged as a byproduct of changes in how enamel was formed in these species. It might even have some unknown functional purpose.

In any case, we suggest these uniform, circular pits should be viewed as a trait rather than a defect.

A modern comparison

Further support for the idea of a genetic origin comes from comparisons with a rare condition in humans today called amelogenesis imperfecta, which affects enamel formation.

About one in 1,000 people today have amelogenesis imperfecta. By contrast, the uniform pitting we have seen appears in up to half of Paranthropus individuals.

Although it likely has a genetic basis, we argue the even pitting is too common to be considered a harmful disorder. What’s more, it persisted at similar frequencies for millions of years.

A new evolutionary marker

If this uniform pitting really does have a genetic origin, we may be able to use it to trace evolutionary relationships.

We already use subtle tooth features such as enamel thickness, cusp shape, and wear patterns to help identify species. The uniform pitting may be an additional diagnostic tool.

For example, our findings support the idea that Paranthropus is a “monophyletic group”, meaning all its species descend from a (relatively) recent common ancestor, rather than evolving seperatly from different Australopithecus taxa.

And we did not find this pitting in the southern Africa species Australopithecus africanus, despite a large sample of more than 500 teeth. However, it does appear in the earliest Omo Australopithecus specimens.

So perhaps the pitting could also help pinpoint from where Paranthropus branched off on its own evolutionary path.

An intriguing case

One especially intriguing case is Homo floresiensis, the so-called “hobbit” species from Indonesia. Based on published images, their teeth appear to show similar pitting.

If confirmed, this could suggest an evolutionary history more closely tied to earlier Australopithecus species than to Homo. However, H. floresiensis also shows potential skeletal and dental pathologies, so more research is needed before drawing such conclusions.

More research is also needed to fully understand the processes behind the uniform pitting before it can be used routinely in taxonomic work. But our research shows it is likely a heritable characteristic, one not found in any living primates studied to date, nor in our own genus Homo (rare cases of amelogenesis imperfecta aside).

As such, it offers an exciting new tool for exploring evolutionary relationships among fossil hominins.

Ian Towle, Research Fellow in Biological Anthropology, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In June 2024, the Australian government ended the Women in STEM Ambassador program. The decision followed a report that urged a broader, intersectional approach to diversity in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM).

For six years, under the leadership of astrophysicist Lisa Harvey-Smith, the program contributed to research, tools and resources aimed at breaking down structural barriers that limit women’s and girls’ participation in STEM education and careers.

At the time, the move to scrap it was framed as a step toward more inclusive progress.

Does that reasoning still hold one year later? As diversity and inclusion efforts face global cutbacks, it’s more important than ever to reflect on where Australia is heading. Are we truly building a more equitable STEM future?

Why diversity in STEM matters

Structural barriers have long limited participation in STEM for women, people of colour, First Nations communities, people with disabilities, and those in low socioeconomic groups.

Such barriers include stereotypes and bias, a lack of role models, limited flexible work arrangements, and inadequate parental leave and childcare support.

If we achieved equity in STEM, everyone – including entire groups who have been systemically excluded in the past – would have equal access to opportunities, resources and recognition.

For a young Aboriginal woman studying engineering in a regional town, it would mean the same chance to apply for internships at top firms as peers who live in cities. She would have the same access to well-equipped labs and mentoring programs, and an equal likelihood of being nominated for academic awards or leadership roles.

Improving diversity in STEM is also critical to Australia’s capacity for innovation, particularly as we face global challenges such as climate change, disruption from artificial intelligence, and geopolitical instability.

Diverse STEM teams are more likely to approach problems from multiple perspectives. They embody democratic values, driving innovation and strengthening resilience in the face of complex issues.

Yet, despite decades of gender-focused programs, meaningful progress has been limited. STEM Equity Monitor 2024 data show that while the number of women in STEM has increased, only 37% of university STEM enrolments are women. When it comes to STEM jobs in Australia, only 15% are occupied by women.

If not an ambassador, then what?

The lack of diversity in STEM is driven by systemic barriers such as persistent stereotypes, a shortage of diverse role models, and unequal access to opportunities.

An independent report released in February 2024 recommended looking at diversity in a more inclusive way.

Instead of focusing only on women in STEM, it suggested we consider how different aspects of a person’s identity – such as their gender, race, or background – can combine and affect their experience.

This means some people may face additional challenges. For example, a migrant woman of colour in STEM might deal with more obstacles than a white woman in the same field, because of the way her different identities overlap.

So … where are we now?

While adopting this view is commendable, the practical changes that have happened over the past year raise important questions about whether Australia is truly moving toward a more inclusive STEM landscape.

In August 2024, the government announced a $38 million boost to STEM programs, aligning with recommendations from the independent report. Two long-standing programs were closed, while seven other initiatives received additional funding.

However, many of the funded programs still leave major gaps.

For instance, one of the few initiatives targeting school-aged students, the National Youth Science Forum, is mostly limited to Years 11 and 12. Yet we know that girls’ disengagement from STEM begins as early as primary school.

Similarly, while the Superstars of STEM initiative continues to receive investment, its focus remains on “inspiring” students through role models.

Inspiration alone is not enough. We need a sustained, systemic approach that changes attitudes and builds structures to support and retain diverse students throughout their STEM journey.

A key tool may have been left underfunded

Of all the initiatives announced, the STEM Equity Monitor received the smallest share of funding, despite being the key tool for tracking Australia’s progress on diversity in STEM.

The 2024 report still relies on some data last updated in 2022, reflecting a lack of commitment to maintaining a consistent, annual pulse on equity outcomes. Moreover, the monitor doesn’t provide intersectional analysis, limiting its ability to inform targeted, evidence-based actions.

In principle, it still makes sense to shift Australia’s strategy on diversity in STEM towards a more intersectional and systemic approach. However, the practical steps taken so far don’t seem to align with that vision. Funding decisions, program closures, and limited investment in data and accountability tools suggest a disconnect between intent and implementation.

Without clear action plans, inclusive design – which ensures STEM initiatives genuinely serve people of all backgrounds – and robust monitoring, there is a risk the new direction will be symbolic rather than transformative.

Maria Vieira, Lecturer, Education Futures, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Treasury head Steven Kennedy will become Anthony Albanese’s right-hand bureaucrat, while Treasury will get its first female secretary, with the appointment of Jenny Wilkinson, who currently heads the Finance Department.

Kennedy, to be the new secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, replaces Glyn Davis, who announced after the election he was leaving the post after just three years.

Kennedy, 60, has had a close working relationship with Treasurer Jim Chalmers. He also served Chalmers’ Liberal predecessor, Josh Frydenberg, during the pandemic, when the Treasury was the main bureaucratic architect of the JobKeeper scheme that provided subsidies to business to keep on workers.

Wilkinson, 58, has been secretary of the Finance Department since August 2022. She was previously a deputy secretary in Treasury, where she worked on the pandemic economic stimulus measures. She is also a former head of the Parliamentary Budget Office.

As Treasury secretary, Wilkinson will take Kennedy’s place on the Reserve Bank.

Chalmers described Kennedy and Wilkinson as “the best of the best”, saying they were “outstanding public servants”.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said Wilkinson’s appointment not only recognised her talent, skills and expertise, “but it also serves as an important reminder for women and girls across the country that all positions in the Australian Public Service – no matter how senior – are roles that women can hold”.

The prime minister announced the bureaucratic reshuffle during his Tuesday address to the National Press Club on his second term agenda.

With Chalmers already having named productivity as his primary priority for this term, Albanese said he had asked the treasurer to convene “a roundtable to support and shape our government’s growth and productivity agenda”.

The summit, at Parliament House in August, will bring together a group of leaders from business, unions and civil society. More details will come in a speech on productivity by Chalmers next week.

“This will be a more streamlined dialogue than the Jobs and Skills Summit, dealing with a more targeted set of issues,” Albanese said.

“We want to build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform, to drive growth, boost productivity, strengthen the budget, and secure the resilience of our economy, in a time of global uncertainty.

"What we want is a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions.”

Albanese said the government’s starting point was clear, “Our plan for economic growth and productivity is about Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn.” The aim was for growth, wages and productivity to rise together.

The Productivity Commission recently released 15 “priority reform areas” to further explore as part of the five productivity inquiries that the government has commissioned it to undertake.

The commission’s March quarterly bulletin shows a 0.1% decline in labour productivity in the December quarter, and a 1.2% decline over the year.

COVID produced a temporary lift in productivity but that soon passed.

In general Australia’s labour productivity has not significantly increased in more than a decade.

Welcoming the roundtable, Australian Industry Group Chief Executive Innes Willox said it was “critical that this tripartite summit focus on getting private sector investment moving again. Our economy and labour market has been unsustainably reliant on government spending for a prolonged period now.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The video of a Los Angeles police officer shooting a rubber bullet at Channel Nine reporter Lauren Tomasi is as shocking as it is revealing.

In her live broadcast, Tomasi is standing to the side of a rank of police in riot gear. She describes the way they have begun firing rubber bullets to disperse protesters angry with US President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.

As Tomasi finishes her sentence, the camera pans to the left, just in time to catch the officer raising his gun and firing a non-lethal round into her leg. She said a day later she is sore, but otherwise OK.

Although a more thorough investigation might find mitigating circumstances, from the video evidence, it is hard to dismiss the shot as “crossfire”. The reporter and cameraman were off to one side of the police, clearly identified and working legitimately.

The shooting is also not a one-off. Since the protests against Trump’s mass deportations policy began three days ago, a reporter with the LA Daily News and a freelance journalist have been hit with pepper balls and tear gas.

British freelance photojournalist Nick Stern also had emergency surgery to remove a three-inch plastic bullet from his leg.

In all, the Los Angeles Press Club has documented more than 30 incidents of obstruction and attacks on journalists during the protests.

Trump’s assault on the media

It now seems assaults on the media are no longer confined to warzones or despotic regimes. They are happening in American cities, in broad daylight, often at the hands of those tasked with upholding the law.

But violence is only one piece of the picture. In the nearly five months since taking office, the Trump administration has moved to defund public broadcasters, curtail access to information and undermine the credibility of independent media.

International services once used to project democratic values and American soft power around the world, such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, have all had their funding cut and been threatened with closure. (The Voice of America website is still operational but hasn’t been updated since mid-March, with one headline on the front page reading “Vatican: Francis stable, out of ‘imminent danger’ of death”).

The Associated Press, one of the most respected and important news agencies in the world, has been restricted from its access to the White House and covering Trump. The reason? It decided to defy Trump’s directive to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America.

Even broadcast licenses for major US networks, such as ABC, NBC and CBS, have been publicly threatened — a signal to editors and executives that political loyalty might soon outweigh journalistic integrity.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is more used to condemning attacks on the media in places like Russia. However, in April, it issued a report headlined: “Alarm bells: Trump’s first 100 days ramp up fear for the press, democracy”.

A requirement for peace

Why does this matter? The success of American democracy has never depended on unity or even civility. It has depended on scrutiny. A system where power is challenged, not flattered.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution – which protects freedom of speech – has long been considered the gold standard for building the institutions of free press and free expression. That only works when journalism is protected — not in theory but in practice.

Now, strikingly, the language once reserved for autocracies and failed states has begun to appear in assessments of the US. Civicus, which tracks declining democracies around the world, recently put the US on its watchlist, alongside the Democratic Republic of Congo, Italy, Serbia and Pakistan.

The attacks on the journalists in LA are troubling not only for their sake, but for ours. This is about civic architecture. The kind of framework that makes space for disagreement without descending into disorder.

Press freedom is not a luxury for peacetime. It is a requirement for peace.

Peter Greste, Professor of Journalism and Communications, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

On June 11, Australia marks 50 years since the Racial Discrimination Act became law. This important legislation helps make sure people are treated equally no matter their race, skin colour, background, or where they come from.

But the act didn’t happen overnight. It took nearly ten years for Australia to follow through on the promises it made to the world to fight racism when it signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1966.

When Australia first signed that agreement, it still had laws and attitudes shaped by the White Australia Policy.

Even after Australia started moving away from the White Australia Policy, federal leaders held off on making anti-racism laws. They weren’t sure it was allowed under the Constitution, worried about the cost, and didn’t want to upset the states. Many also feared that Australians wouldn’t support it.

It took the courage of Gough Whitlam, Australia’s 21st prime minister, to pass Australia’s first anti-discrimination law. Between 1973 and 1975, Whitlam and his government made four attempts to pass laws against racial discrimination. The act was the result of their fourth try – this time, it worked.

An uphill battle

The first time the Racial Discrimination Bill was introduced was in 1973, it was alongside a Human Rights Bill. Together, they were part of a bigger plan to give people in Australia more rights and fair treatment.

People had mixed feelings about the idea of a law to protect individual rights. Most of the concern was about the Human Rights Bill, but some also doubted whether a Racial Discrimination Act was needed.

There was debate about whether it would really work or just be a symbolic step, and whether or not it would take away from people’s freedoms.

In the end, the 1973 bill lapsed and did not become law.

The Whitlam government reintroduced the bill twice more in 1974, once in April and then again in October.

The April version added protections for immigrants and focused more on conciliation and education, but it wasn’t debated before an election.

The bill returned in October with minor updates, mainly to strengthen education efforts and clarify that it used civil, not criminal, enforcement.

Still, it was withdrawn in early 1975 because of ongoing political instability.

The 1975 Racial Discrimination Bill was the Whitlam government’s final, and successful, push to make laws tackling racism.

Familiar debates

Labor MPs backed the 1975 version of the bill, highlighting its importance for Indigenous people and other marginalised groups.

But the Liberal–Country Party Coalition, then in opposition, pushed back hard.

While the opposition claimed to support equality, they questioned the legal basis of the bill, feared it gave too much power to the race relations commissioner and warned it might threaten free speech.

Some opposition voices, especially in the Senate, went further, downplaying racism altogether. Senator Ian Wood claimed Australia was “singularly free of racial discrimination”.

Senator Glen Sheil argued immigration was the issue:

Australia over recent years has adopted an immigration policy that has allowed the immigration into this country of blacks, whites, reds, yellows and browns […] because of these problems, once again created by governments, we are now faced with this Racial Discrimination Bill. In my opinion if this bill is implemented it will create more discrimination, not less.

The opposition successfully weakened the bill by removing several key parts, including:

• criminal penalties for inciting racial discrimination

• the ability of the commissioner to start legal proceedings in court or ask a court to make someone give evidence

• and criminal penalties for publishing, distributing or expressing racial hostility.

Despite these setbacks, the Racial Discrimination Act passed.

Change takes time

Even with all the compromises, the passing of the act was a major moment in Australian history.

As Whitlam acknowledged:

it is of course extraordinarily difficult to define racial discrimination and outlaw it by legislative means. Social attitudes and mental habits do not readily lend themselves to codification and statutory prohibition.

The act has not erased racial discrimination, nor is it perfect.

It continues to spark debates and needs to be further strengthened to meet the changing needs of our society.

However, the laws have been used in real cases to protect people’s rights, shown the federal government does have the power under the Constitution to make laws about human rights, and has sent a strong message that everyone deserves to be safe and free from discrimination, regardless of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

The story of the Racial Discrimination Act is a reminder that real change takes time, resolve and tenacity.

While the laws finally passed, the Human Rights Bill introduced alongside it in 1973 did not.

More than 50 years later, Australia still does not have a national Human Rights Act. As more people call for stronger human rights protections in our laws, the Racial Discrimination Act stands as both a reminder of what progress can look like and a challenge to imagine what bold leadership could achieve today.

A Human Rights Act is now needed more than ever to protect those most at risk. It will take the same political will, moral clarity, and bravery that brought the Racial Discrimination Act to life.

Azadeh Dastyari, Director, Research and Policy, Whitlam Institute, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.