MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Walker-Munro, Associate Professor (Law), Southern Cross University

In Las Vegas last week, two people were admitted to hospital “deathly ill” after being exposed to “possible biological material, including refrigerators containing vials with unknown liquids” at a suburban home. Law enforcement quickly scrambled, taking down an illegal laboratory on the premises.

But this wasn’t a meth lab. Instead, it was allegedly filled with thousands of deadly pathogens.

The FBI has since opened an official investigation. It claims the Las Vegas lab is linked to another illegal lab in California that was shut down in 2023, which was investigated by US Congress. Congress found the California biolab had received millions of dollars from Chinese banks, and held more than 1,000 genetically modified mice as well as samples of diseases including HIV, malaria, COVID and even Ebola.

The US is now asking how many of these labs might exist. In Australia, we can’t really answer that question either.

Why are these labs emerging now?

New technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) are putting advanced biological techniques into the hands of everyday people.

Once, you needed a doctorate’s worth of knowledge and years of experience to build a biological weapon. Now, AI may be able to teach you everything you need to know.

A study published last year showed a publicly available AI model outperformed 94% of PhD-holding virologists (on one benchmark, at least). More specialised AI systems can help you design proteins or genetic sequences in your living room. Engineers at Google have even created an entire AI-driven “virtual laboratory” to devise and synthesise new chemical compounds.

What’s more, the genetic sequences of deadly viruses are freely available online. Open-source databases such as NextStrain and PathoPlexus offer researchers the ability to share their work in the hope of developing new vaccines or antibiotics.

But those same resources can be used by malicious actors to “shop” for pathogens, then pay synthetic biology companies to build DNA sequences to order.

Some scholars fear this situation means “no disease-causing organism can forever be eradicated”. In 2020, for example, Swiss scientists created samples of the virus behind the COVID pandemic using DNA sequences emailed from China weeks before any human infections were reported in Switzerland.

For would-be terrorists, backyard biolabs may be a “low-risk, high-reward” option.

As the threat of politically motivated violence in Australia increases, so does the chance a sovereign citizen or far-right group, or any other kind of extremist, may look to use biology in an attack.

If the Bondi shooters or Perth Invasion Day attack had used disease instead of guns or bombs, many more people could have died.

What does this mean for Australia?

There are key gaps in Australia’s regulatory framework for pathogens made in backyard labs, as I outlined in 2024:

First, our laws only operate in the physical world. They don’t cover the virtual world, and struggle to apply to emerging technologies.

Second, Australia’s “security-sensitive agents” scheme controls specific pathogens by name. This means any newly invented disease is not covered. One observer suggested this is like “someone taking a hand grenade, painting it a different color, and walking it through an airport with no problem”.

And third, our regulatory scheme operates across ten different government departments, universities and funding agencies. With that much complexity, something is bound to get missed.

Another big problem is a lack of transparency, where even authorised laboratories in Australia operate under a cloud of secrecy. There is no publicly available list of who is authorised to handle these diseases.

While attempts to map such labs do exist, one study published last year estimated the number of labs in Australia working on highly hazardous diseases is anywhere between 15 and 40.

Even worse, despite increases in lab regulation and safety guidelines, mistakes happen. Labs leak viruses, infect their workers, and keep poor records, with a recent study showing “worldwide documentation and reporting of accidents are generally poor”.

Another potential risk is underpaid researchers and students willing to sell knowledge on the black market.

What can be done?

Australia needs to revisit its approach to regulating technology in life and medical science research. At the moment you can buy synthetic DNA online without even a permit, which introduces big risks.

The developers of AI tools used in medical and life sciences research also need to build in guardrails to prevent misuse. We need to make sure the researchers and students doing work on pathogens are trustworthy, too.

Further, Australia could also take a leadership role in pushing for a unified framework for regulating global access to dangerous diseases.

The newly established Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) also has a role to play. It can educate the medical profession and the general public about backyard biolabs and their threat to public health.

It can also coordinate the various government agencies who all have a hand in disease regulation. The centre could also drive more comprehensive public reporting of lab accidents and incidents. It will need to push adapting the “security-sensitive” agents scheme to modern research as well.

The public has a role to play, too: reporting suspected illegal labs, no matter what they are being used for. An anonymous tip-off from a member of the public was what led to last week’s raid on the Las Vegas lab.

Brendan Walker-Munro receives funding from the Social Cyber Institute, and has completed paid consultancies with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. He is affiliated with the Australian National Security College, and the Social Cyber Institute.

– ref. An illegal bioweapons lab was found in a Las Vegas garage. It’s a warning for Australia – https://theconversation.com/an-illegal-bioweapons-lab-was-found-in-a-las-vegas-garage-its-a-warning-for-australia-275564

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/11/an-illegal-bioweapons-lab-was-found-in-a-las-vegas-garage-its-a-warning-for-australia-275564/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A South Australian Fox & Hedgehog state poll has the Liberals facing a possible wipe-out in the lower house, losing seats to Labor and One Nation. One Nation continues to surge in a federal YouGov poll, and Newspoll has respondent preferences for a Labor vs One Nation contest.

The South Australian state election will be held on March 21. A Fox & Hedgehog poll for The Advertiser, conducted January 31 to February 8 from a sample of 904, gave Labor a 61–39 lead over the Liberals by respondent preferences, unchanged from the December Fox & Hedgehog SA poll.

Primary votes were 40% Labor (down one), 20% One Nation (up seven), 19% Liberals (down two), 12% Greens (steady) and 9% for all Others (down four). A “three-party preferred” gave Labor 54%, One Nation 25% and the Liberals 21%, with Labor crushing One Nation by 63–37, two points higher than the Labor vs Liberal two-party estimate.

If this poll is accurate, there is some chance the Liberals will win zero of the 47 lower house seats. Labor would win a big majority, with the few conservative seats more likely to go to One Nation than the Liberals. At the previous SA election in 2022, the Liberals won 16 seats, with Labor winning the two-party vote by 54.6–45.4.

Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas was at 52–21 approve (51–19 in December) and new Liberal leader Ashton Hurn was at 20–13 approve (former leader Vincent Tarzia was at 25–17 disapprove). Malinauskas led Hurn as preferred premier by 54–22 (54–18 vs Tarzia).

One Nation recruited former right-wing federal Liberal SA senator Cory Bernardi as its lead candidate for the upper house. Half of the 22 upper house seats are up at this election by statewide proportional representation with preferences. With a quota of one-twelfth or 8.3%, Bernardi is certain of election on One Nation’s current polls. His ratings in this poll were 19–15 disapprove.

SA Labor was at 45–28 approve, the SA Liberals at 37–25 disapprove and One Nation at 36–30 approve. Federal politicians listed in this SA poll were Anthony Albanese (44–35 disapprove), Sussan Ley (32–17 disapprove), Pauline Hanson (44–34 approve), Angus Taylor (20–13 disapprove) and Andrew Hastie (17–15 disapprove).

Newspoll respondent preferences for Labor vs One Nation contest

Monday’s federal Newspoll gave Labor 33% of the primary vote, One Nation 27%, the Coalition 18%, the Greens 12% and all Others 10%. When voters from parties other than Labor and One Nation were asked to assign preferences between these parties, Labor had 50% of all preferences, One Nation 29% and 21% said they would follow how to vote card recommendations or didn’t know.

If we exclude these 21%, the overall Labor share of preferences is 63%, and Labor wins the two-party vote against One Nation by more than 58–42. This would be reduced somewhat if Coalition how to vote cards recommend preferences to One Nation ahead of Labor.

By party, Greens preferences favoured Labor over One Nation by an overwhelming 91–1, while Liberal preferences favoured One Nation at a far weaker rate (43–33). All Other preferences favoured Labor by 53–32.

YouGov poll: One Nation’s surge continues

A national YouGov poll for Sky News, conducted February 3–10 from a sample of 1,561, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote (down one since the January 20–27 YouGov poll), One Nation 28% (up three), the Coalition 19% (down one), the Greens 12% (steady), independents 5% (down one) and others 6% (steady).

Labor led One Nation by 55–45 using respondent preferences, a two-point gain for One Nation. Labor led the Coalition by 54–46, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

Albanese’s net approval was down two points to -18, with 56% dissatisfied and 38% satisfied. Ley’s net approval was down nine points to -40. Albanese led Ley as better PM by 47–25 (47–29 previously).

On best to lead the Liberals, Hastie had 15%, Ley 10% and Taylor 8% with 60% undecided. Among 2025 election Coalition voters, Hastie had 25%, Ley 12% and Taylor 11%.

Morgan poll: Labor down after interest rate hike

A national Morgan poll, conducted February 2–8 from a sample of 1,584, gave Labor a 53.5–46.5 lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences, a 2.5-point gain for the Coalition since the January 26 to February 1 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 28.5% Labor (down two), 24.5% One Nation (down 0.5), 22.5% Coalition (up two), 13.5% Greens (up one) and 11% for all Others (down 0.5). By 2025 election flows, Labor led by 53–47, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition. No Labor vs One Nation two-party estimate was reported.

Newspoll didn’t suggest Labor had been damaged by the February 3 interest rate hike, but both Morgan and YouGov suggest some damage.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Liberals facing wipe-out in South Australian lower house: new poll – https://theconversation.com/liberals-facing-wipe-out-in-south-australian-lower-house-new-poll-275539

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/11/liberals-facing-wipe-out-in-south-australian-lower-house-new-poll-275539/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil Munro, PhD Candidate in Psychology, James Cook University

Depression and anxiety affect millions of people worldwide.

While treatments such as medication and psychotherapy (sometimes called talk therapy) can be very effective, they’re not always an option. Barriers include cost, stigma, long waiting lists for appointments, and potential drug side effects.

So what about exercise? Our new research, published today, confirms physical activity can be just as effective for some people as therapy or medication. This is especially true when it’s social and guided by a professional, such as a gym class or running club.

Let’s take a look at the evidence.

What we already knew

Physical activity has long been promoted as a treatment option for anxiety and depression, largely because it helps release “feel good” chemicals in the brain which help boost mood and reduce stress.

But the evidence can be confusing. Hundreds of studies with diverse results make it unclear how much exercise is beneficial, what type, and who it helps most.

Over the past two decades, researchers have conducted dozens of separate meta-analyses (studies that combine results from multiple trials) examining exercise for depression and anxiety. But these have still left gaps in understanding how effective exercise is for different age groups and whether the type of exercise matters.

Many studies have also included participants with confounding factors (influences that can distort research findings) such as other chronic diseases, for example, diabetes or arthritis. This means it can be hard to apply the findings more broadly.

What we did

Our research aimed to resolve this confusion by conducting a “meta-meta-analysis”. This means we systematically reviewed the results of all the existing meta-analyses – there were 81 – to determine what the evidence really shows.

Together, this meant data from nearly 80,000 participants across more than 1,000 original trials.

We examined multiple factors that might explain why their results varied. These included differences in:

• who they studied (for example, people with diagnosed depression or anxiety versus those just experiencing symptoms, different age groups, and women during pregnancy and after birth)

• what the exercise involved (for example, comparing aerobic fitness to resistance training and mind-body exercises, such as yoga; whether it was supervised by a professional; intensity and duration)

• whether the exercise was individual or in a group.

We also used advanced statistical techniques to accurately isolate and estimate the exact impact of exercise, separate from confounding factors (including other chronic diseases).

Our data looked at the impact of exercise alone on depression and anxiety. But sometimes people will also use antidepressants and/or therapy – so further research would be needed to explore the effect of these when combined.

What did the study find?

Exercise is effective at reducing both depression and anxiety. But there is some nuance.

We found exercising had a high impact on depression symptoms, and a medium impact on anxiety, compared to staying inactive.

The benefits were comparable to, and in some cases better than, more widely prescribed mental health treatments, including therapy and antidepressants.

Importantly, we discovered who exercise helped most. Two groups showed the most improvement: adults aged 18 to 30 and women who had recently given birth.

Many women experience barriers to exercising after giving birth, including lack of time, confidence or access to appropriate and affordable activities.

Our findings suggest making it more accessible could be an important strategy to address new mothers’ mental health in this vulnerable time.

How you exercise matters

We also found aerobic activities – such as walking, running, cycling or swimming – were best at reducing both depression and anxiety symptoms.

However, all forms of exercise reduced symptoms, including resistance training (such as lifting weights) and mind-body practices (such as yoga).

For depression, there were greater improvements when people exercised with others and were guided by a professional, such as a group fitness class.

Unfortunately, there wasn’t available data on group or supervised exercise for anxiety, so we would need more research to find out if the impact is similar.

Exercising once or twice a week had a similar effect on depression as exercising more frequently. And there didn’t seem to be a significant difference between exercising vigorously or at a low intensity – all were beneficial.

But for anxiety, the best improvements in anxiety symptoms were when exercise was done:

• consistently, for up to eight weeks, and

• at a lower intensity, such as walking or swimming laps at a gentle pace.

So, what does all this mean?

Our research shows exercise is a legitimate and evidence-based treatment option for depression and anxiety, particularly for people with diagnosed conditions.

However, simply telling patients to “exercise more” is unlikely to be effective.

The evidence shows structured, supervised exercise with a social component is best for improving depression and anxiety. The social aspect and the accountability may help keep people motivated.

Clinicians should keep this in mind, offering referrals to specific programs – such as aerobic fitness classes or supervised walking and running programs – rather than general advice.

The findings also suggest this kind of exercise can be particularly effective when targeted to depression in younger adults and women who’ve recently given birth.

The takeaway

For people who are hesitant about medication, or facing long waits for therapy, supervised group exercise may be an effective alternative. It’s evidence-based, and you can start any time.

But it’s still best to get advice from a professional. If you have anxiety or depression symptoms, you should talk to your GP or psychologist. They can advise where exercise fits in your treatment plan, potentially alongside therapy and/or medication.

Samantha Teague receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

James Dimmock, Klaire Somoray, and Neil Munro do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Exercise can be as effective as medication for depression and anxiety – new study – https://theconversation.com/exercise-can-be-as-effective-as-medication-for-depression-and-anxiety-new-study-272243

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/11/exercise-can-be-as-effective-as-medication-for-depression-and-anxiety-new-study-272243/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Byers, PhD Candidate & Research Assistant, Faculty of Engineering & IT, The University of Melbourne

As with all creative industries, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has been infiltrating video games.

Non-generative AI has been in the industry long before things like ChatGPT became household names. Video games would contain AI-driven gameplay systems such as matchmaking, non-player character (NPC) behaviour, or iconic fictional AI characters such as SHODAN and GLaDOS.

Now, generative AI is being used to produce game assets and speed up development. This is threatening creative jobs and fuelling worries about low-effort releases or “slop”.

If you buy a video game today, you may have no reliable way of knowing whether generative AI was used in any part of its development – from the art and voice work to the code and marketing.

Should developers disclose it? Since 2023, AI disclosure in video games has gone from non-existent to patchy. It’s arguably more to do with copyright concerns than being transparent with players.

A messy baseline

Steam, owned by US video game company Valve, is the largest digital storefront for PC games. It’s also the closest thing to a baseline for AI disclosure – simply because it was the first major platform to formalise a position.

Amid the rise of AI in 2023, Valve rejected AI-produced games on Steam, citing legal uncertainty and stating the company was “continuing to learn about AI”.

By January 2024, Valve formalised its disclosure rules, requiring developers to declare two categories of AI use: pre-generated content (made during development) and live-generated content (created while the game runs).

While industry leaders are optimistic about AI’s role in game development, disclosure remains contentious. Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Steam’s competitor Epic Games, mocked Steam’s AI disclosure in late 2025 as being akin to telling players what shampoo developers use.

In recent weeks, Valve has narrowed its disclosure rules, clarifying that developers who submit games to their platform only need to report AI if the output is directly experienced by players.

This changes what counts as relevant transparency, effectively giving a green light to AI coding and other behind-the-scenes processes.

Valve’s focus on player-facing AI does provide consumers with some transparency and the game submissions are checked before release. However, it’s not clear what happens if the makers of a game don’t disclose AI when they should have.

The disclosure system also keeps Steam ahead of a legal grey area regarding copyright and generative AI output. If needed, Valve could quickly pull titles affected by AI copyright claims. Some AI models can memorise copyrighted material and reproduce it when prompted, so this is not an entirely hypothetical scenario.

AI disclosure on Steam doesn’t have a consistent format – developers simply have a text field where they can write their disclosure in free form. Since it’s not treated as an official tag, consumers also can’t search or filter for AI content when browsing for games in the store.

At the time of writing, a search of SteamDB – a third-party catalogue of Steam’s database – lists more than 15,000 games and software with Steam’s AI disclosure label, with no total count available on Steam itself.

In response, user watchdogs have stepped in. The Steam curator group AI Check tracks games with AI-generated assets and flags whether developers disclose AI use – and how.

Players are largely in the dark

Outside Steam, disclosure is inconsistent if not absent. Indie storefront itch.io provides a searchable “AI Generated” tag, but no disclosure is required on game pages.

There’s currently no clear AI disclosure on mobile app stores or console storefronts (Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox), and they’ve been criticised for letting “AI slop” flood their stores.

Epic Games Store and another major distribution platform, GOG.com, also lack clear AI disclosures. GOG recently faced backlash for using AI-generated artwork in its own storefront promotion.

All this leaves players in the dark, while developers face backlash for AI use that many consider harmful for the industry.

Transparency is important

Many players care about AI use in games and when disclosure is missing. There are plenty of cases in which developers were “caught out” using generative AI and responded with ad hoc statements, asset changes, or even had Game of the Year awards rescinded.

But there are also cases in which suspicion has caused cancellations or wrongful accusations of games using AI art when it was actually drawn by a human artist.

Read more:
Distrust in AI is on the rise – but along with healthy scepticism comes the risk of harm

This is why transparency on AI use is important. Many Australians report low familiarity with AI, and research suggests having more information can shift people’s views, helping people make informed choices and avoid witch hunts.

Many people have ethical concerns about AI use, or are worried about environmental consequences due to how many resources the AI data centres chew up.

All this means AI disclosure is currently a consumer rights issue, but it’s governed entirely by the platforms where people purchase the games.

Players don’t need to know what shampoo a developer uses. But they do deserve a clear view of whether the art was AI-generated, whether writers or voice actors were replaced, and whether a game built on AI-generated code is likely to survive an update.

Steam’s disclosure system is a start, but it means little if the information can’t be found or filtered for. Every game storefront should make generative AI use clear at the point of purchase – because players deserve better.

Thomas Byers receives funding from The Research Training Program Scholarship, supported by the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne.

Bjorn Nansen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Are video game developers using AI? Players want to know, but the rules are patchy – https://theconversation.com/are-video-game-developers-using-ai-players-want-to-know-but-the-rules-are-patchy-274850

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/11/are-video-game-developers-using-ai-players-want-to-know-but-the-rules-are-patchy-274850/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Purdie, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago

The government’s announcement this week that it would move ahead with plans for a new facility to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), potentially as early as next year, was framed as a way to shore up energy security.

But the decision instead marks another major step backwards for domestic efforts to decarbonise.

Notably, it comes as communities across the North Island – including Mount Maunganui – are recovering from just the kind of extreme weather events climate change is projected to intensify.

With the United States now withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, and New Zealand simultaneously weakening its own climate settings, it is easy to feel a sense of drift.

Despite 89% of people globally wanting stronger climate action, the erosion of the international rules-based order risks pulling more countries away from cooperative solutions.

But the energy transition now has real momentum. So how much difference does the US withdrawal from Paris – and New Zealand’s turn back towards fossil fuels – actually make?

A setback, not a stop

Before the US withdrew, 93% of global emissions came from countries with net-zero policies in place; that figure has now fallen to 83%. The drop would have been larger if not for pledges by 24 US states, along with many cities and corporations, to stick to Paris Agreement targets.

So, while the US exit might be a massive blow, it is far from the end of global climate action. Current Paris Agreement pledges and targets would see global emissions peak in the next few years, if countries follow through.

Many states – including the US, United Kingdom, China, Australia and Canada – are already recording declines. New Zealand’s emissions have flatlined since 2008 but it is still doing less than its fair share on a per-capita basis.

Globally, the race is now on between avoiding dangerous climate tipping points and fostering self-reinforcing momentum in clean energy, which is already at an all-time high.

This is important, as around 70% of the emissions cuts the world needs to make will likely come from the energy transition. Despite more than half of New Zealand’s emissions coming from agriculture, energy remains a strong focus of the government’s emissions reduction plan.

All the while, solutions to renewable intermittency – the problem of wind and solar not always generating power when it is needed – are expanding.

Read more:
NZ’s rejection of emission targets fuels risk of international law breach

In hydro-heavy systems like New Zealand’s, dry periods can be covered by pumped hydro, biomass, battery storage and overbuilding cheap wind and solar. Importing LNG to “firm” electricity instead undermines these options and puts the brakes on clean investment.

Worldwide, solar and wind capacity has doubled every three years for the past two decades, with each doubling of solar cutting prices by about 25%.

China installed half of all new solar last year and its emissions have now peaked. The European Union now generates more power from renewables than fossil fuels, and Pakistan has imported solar panels equivalent to 40% of its total demand.

Electric vehicles have reached price parity with internal combustion engines. Globally, 25% of new car sales were electric last year, rising to 96% in Norway and 59% in China, with 39 countries now above a 10% sales share. In China’s heavy truck fleet, around half of new sales are electric.

Fossil fuel use is already declining in the developed world: oil use in the OECD peaked in 2005, and coal in 2008. While consumption is still rising in poorer countries, many projections see global oil demand peaking in the next few years. And there is broad agreement coal use will begin to fall before 2030.

As fossil fuel use declines, shipping emissions will fall too. And using existing technology to stop methane leaks from oil and gas wells – which is profitable – would cut emissions by more than all global air travel.

Geopolitics is accelerating the energy transition

Geopolitical tensions are driving a push for energy independence, accelerating the growth of renewables. As Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney recently noted, as the international rules-based order and multilateralism fray, countries are realising they must build greater strategic autonomy, including in energy.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupted gas supplies drove prices higher, leaving Europe paying about €650 billion more for fossil fuels than it otherwise would have – around 40% of the cost of building a 95% renewable power system for the continent.

In 2022–23, the EU built 37% more new renewable capacity than the year before, stepped up energy efficiency and electrification, and set out a strategy to cut reliance on Russian gas.

There is strong global momentum for emissions cuts, and renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels while offering energy security. New Zealand should also be strengthening its own energy independence, while moving quickly away from importing fossil fuels.

As the US steps back from multilateral climate action, New Zealand must work with other countries to keep momentum growing: holding to existing treaties, and joining new agreements such as the “roadmap” away from fossil fuels put forward at COP30 in Brazil last year.

At the very least, New Zealand should shoulder its fair share of per-capita emissions reductions if it wants to leave a liveable world for future generations.

Jen Purdie has received government science (MBIE) funding in the past.

– ref. Importing gas locks NZ into fossil fuels for longer – just as clean energy surges – https://theconversation.com/importing-gas-locks-nz-into-fossil-fuels-for-longer-just-as-clean-energy-surges-275548

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/11/importing-gas-locks-nz-into-fossil-fuels-for-longer-just-as-clean-energy-surges-275548/