GoKawiilPrinting custom lab tools can be cheaper than buying them. Plus, South African scientists might soon have to register with a regulatory body and what an exoskeleton-powered future might look like.
Hello Nature readers, would you like to get this Briefing in your inbox free every day? Sign up here.
Tools found at an archaeological site near Jubbah, Saudi Arabia (shown here) more closely resemble those crafted by Neanderthals than those made by Homo sapiens, researchers say. (NASA/digitaleye via Alamy)
An analysis of stone tools thought to have been crafted by Neanderthals suggests that the ancient humans might have roamed as far south as the Arabian Peninsula around 55,000 years ago. The artifacts come from a site beside an ancient lake in what is now Saudi Arabia’s Nefud Desert. The characteristics of the tools, and efforts to date the sand of the site, suggest that Neanderthals might have lived there just as the area was shifting from desert to a wetter environment — which could have drawn animals, and the humans who hunted them, further south.
Live Science | 9 min read
Reference: Quaternary Science Reviews paper
New legislation set to go before South Africa’s parliament would require natural scientists in the country to register with a government-backed regulatory agency, or face up to a year in prison. The proposed law would regard natural scientists similar to engineers and healthcare professionals, who need to register with their respective regulatory bodies. Natural scientists who spoke to Nature, many of whom were unaware of the legislation, are divided. Some say it could reduce the problem of fraudulent consultant scientists in the country. Others say membership is too expensive, and think it grants the regulatory agency unwarranted power.
Nature | 6 min read
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed an overhaul of how it decides which research projects to fund, and how it reports the outcome of those deliberations. Under the new plan, the agency would report whether project proposals were ranked in one of three broad categories — a top, middle and bottom — based on their merit, rather than the precise numerical scores assigned to project proposals by peer reviewers that researchers have historically received. The scheme is part of a shift away from relying on peer review to award funds based on agency priorities, the agency says.
Nature | 6 min read
... continue reading