On deciding to have a lobotomy:either lobotomies were justified or decisions under risk should not always seek to maximise expected utility

In the 1940s and 1950s thousands of lobotomies were performed on people with mental disorders. These operations were known to be dangerous, but thought to offer great hope. Nowadays, the lobotomies of the 1940s and 1950s are widely condemned. The consensus is that the practitioners who employed them were, at best, misguided enthusiasts, or, at worst, evil. In this paper I employ standard decision theory to understand and assess shifts in the evaluation of lobotomy. Textbooks of medical decision making generally recommend that decisions under risk are made so as to maximise expected utility (MEU) I show that using this procedure suggests that the 1940s and 1950s practice of psychosurgery was justifiable. In making sense of this finding we have a choice: Either we can accept that psychosurgery was justified, in which case condemnation of the lobotomists is misplaced. Or, we can conclude that the use of formal decision procedures, such as MEU, is problematic

30 years of collaboration

We highlight some of the most important cornerstones of the long standing and very fruitful collaboration of the Austrian Diophantine Number Theory research group and the Number Theory and Cryptography School of Debrecen. However, we do not plan to be complete in any sense but give some interesting data and selected results that we find particularly nice. At the end we focus on two topics in more details, namely a problem that origins from a conjecture of Rényi and Erdős (on the number of terms of the square of a polynomial) and another one that origins from a question of Zelinsky (on the unit sum number problem). This paper evolved from a plenary invited talk that the authors gaveat the Joint Austrian-Hungarian Mathematical Conference 2015, August 25-27, 2015 in Győr (Hungary)

The aphid-transmitted Turnip yellows virus Differentially Affects Volatiles Emission and Subsequent Vector Behavior in Two Brassicaceae Plants

Aphids are important pests which cause direct damage by feeding or indirect prejudice by transmitting plant viruses. Viruses are known to induce modifications of plant cues in ways that can alter vector behavior and virus transmission. In this work, we addressed whether the modifications induced by the aphid-transmitted Turnip yellows virus (TuYV) in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana also apply to the cultivated plant Camelina sativa, both belonging to the Brassicaceae family. In most experiments, we observed a significant increase in the relative emission of volatiles from TuYV-infected plants. Moreover, due to plant size, the global amounts of volatiles emitted by C. sativa were higher than those released by A. thaliana. In addition, the volatiles released by TuYV-infected C. sativa attracted the TuYV vector Myzus persicae more efficiently than those emitted by non-infected plants. In contrast, no such preference was observed for A. thaliana. We propose that high amounts of volatiles rather than specific metabolites are responsible for aphid attraction to infected C. sativa. This study points out that the data obtained from the model pathosystem A. thaliana/TuYV cannot be straightforwardly extrapolated to a related plant species infected with the same virus