The Crayfish Plague Pathogen Aphanomyces astaci in Ireland.

Crayfish plague is a devastating disease of European freshwater crayfish and is caused by the oomycete Aphanomyces astaci (Ap. astaci), believed to have been introduced to Europe around 1860. All European species of freshwater crayfish are susceptible to the disease, including the white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Ap. astaci is primarily spread by North American crayfish species and can also disperse rapidly through contaminated wet gear moved between water bodies. This spread, coupled with competition from non-indigenous crayfish, has drastically reduced and fragmented native crayfish populations across Europe. Remarkably, the island of Ireland remained free from the crayfish plague pathogen for over 100 years, providing a refuge for A. pallipes. However, this changed in 1987 when a mass mortality event was linked to the pathogen, marking its introduction to the region. Fortunately, crayfish plague was not detected again in Ireland until 2015 when a molecular analysis linked a mass mortality event in the Erne catchment to Ap. astaci. Since then, the pathogen has appeared across the island. Between 2015 and 2023, Ap. astaci was detected in 18 water catchments, revealing multiple genotypes. Intriguingly, the pathogen in Ireland is present without its natural host species. The uneven distribution of various genetic lineages strongly suggests the human-mediated transport of zoospores via contaminated water equipment as a primary cause of spread. This review details the timeline of these events, Ap. astaci's introduction into Ireland, and its rapid spread. As well, this review references the genotypes that have been determined, and discusses the issue of non-indigenous crayfish species in Ireland and management efforts.

A reduction in cigarette smoking improves health-related quality of life and does not worsen psychiatric symptoms in individuals with serious mental illness.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke cigarettes at a much higher rate than the general population, increasing their risk for medical illnesses and mortality. However, individuals with SMI do not get enough support to quit smoking, partially because of concerns from medical providers that reducing smoking may worsen their symptoms or quality of life. METHODS: Veterans with SMI and nicotine dependence (n = 178) completed a 12-week smoking cessation trial (parent trial dates: 2010-2014) including assessments of smoking status, psychiatric symptoms (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), and quality of life (Lehman Quality of Life Interview-Short Version) at up to four time points: baseline, post-treatment, three-month follow-up, and 9-month follow-up. Bayesian multilevel modeling estimated the impact of changes in the self-reported number of cigarettes per day in the past seven days on psychiatric symptoms and quality of life. RESULTS: Between subjects, each additional pack of cigarettes smoked per day was associated with a 0.83 point higher score (95%CI: 0.03 to 1.7) on a negative symptoms scale ranging from 0 to 35. Within subjects, each one-pack reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day was associated with an improvement of 0.32 (95%CI = 0.12 to 0.54) on the health-related quality of life scale, which ranges from 0 to 7 points. There were no other significant between- or within-subjects effects of smoking on psychiatric symptoms or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with SMI and their providers should pursue smoking cessation without fear of worsening psychiatric symptoms or quality of life.

Attributions toward artificial agents in a modified Moral Turing Test.

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) raise important questions about whether people view moral evaluations by AI systems similarly to human-generated moral evaluations. We conducted a modified Moral Turing Test (m-MTT), inspired by Allen et al. (Exp Theor Artif Intell 352:24-28, 2004) proposal, by asking people to distinguish real human moral evaluations from those made by a popular advanced AI language model: GPT-4. A representative sample of 299 U.S. adults first rated the quality of moral evaluations when blinded to their source. Remarkably, they rated the AI's moral reasoning as superior in quality to humans' along almost all dimensions, including virtuousness, intelligence, and trustworthiness, consistent with passing what Allen and colleagues call the comparative MTT. Next, when tasked with identifying the source of each evaluation (human or computer), people performed significantly above chance levels. Although the AI did not pass this test, this was not because of its inferior moral reasoning but, potentially, its perceived superiority, among other possible explanations. The emergence of language models capable of producing moral responses perceived as superior in quality to humans' raises concerns that people may uncritically accept potentially harmful moral guidance from AI. This possibility highlights the need for safeguards around generative language models in matters of morality.