An injection of RNA may transfer memories?

By Gabriella Caceres

Figure 1. Image by Bédécarrats et al. 2018

Imagine a future in which you could tell your spouse about your day by simply transferring the memory to them, or one in which you could pass your memories on even after your death. These scenarios may seem far ahead in the future, but steps are definitely being taken towards this development. To combat our natural memory inaccuracy and decline due to old age or Alzheimer’s disease, which has been found in 1 out of every 10 people over 65 years old (WHO, 2017), scientists are beginning to investigate the biology of memory and the ways in which the process of making memories can be improved. A recent and controversial article published by Science News reported that RNA may be used to transfer memories from one sea slug to another. Bedecarrats et al. 2018 claimed that they were able to transfer memories from neurons of sea slugs (Aplysia californica) by first sensitizing the slugs with shocks until they had a long-lasting withdrawal response to touch. Then, the researchers extracted the RNA from the sensory neurons of the shocked slugs, and injected that RNA into the sensory neurons of non-sensitized sea slugs (figure 1). The authors postulated that the sensitization occurred because the donor sea slug underwent epigenetic changes, or when a methyl group gets attached to the DNA and modulates gene expression (D’Urso et al. 2014). This whole process resulted in a transfer of sensitization (a form of implicit, or unconscious, memory) to the recipient slug, as it experienced the same long-lasting response to touch that the donor slug did.

Figure 2. Image by Deadwyler et al. 2013

This is not the only experiment that has explored neural-memory transfers. Deadwyler et al. 2013 derived information-encoding patterns from the hippocampus of a “donor” rat that was well-trained to perform operant responses to a delayed-non-match-to-sample task, and sent the information via electrical stimulation to a non-trained “recipient” rat, facilitating its task performance (figure 2). Such studies provide proof of concept that direct transfer of memories between two brains is a possibility. Moreover, memories seem to be at the root of who we are and what we achieve in our lives, but what happens when individual and combined memories collide? It is time to begin thinking about the ethical concerns, evaluating the value of memory and how we benefit from the memory of others, as well as the consequences that memory transfers may bring to bear on issues of privacy and individuality.

Thoughts are one of the few private things we have left. With such memory-transfer innovations, this may not be true anymore, and complex privacy problems may arise. For example, it can be difficult to control which exact memories/thoughts will get transferred during a memory transfer procedure: there may be signals the sender is not willing to share (Tamburrini, 2009; Trimper et al., 2014) or signals the receiver may not be able to refuse. A way to prevent unconsented information from being transferred would have to be developed. In addition, with the rise of this new technology and possible commercialization, individuals may feel a pressure to share their memories with family, friends, employers, and even insurance companies. After the embarrassing interview, for example, your spouse may want you to play that memory in their mind. Or after that party, your mother may want to see what was going on. This may lead to a change in the individual’s sense of freedom; everything you experience can be known by others.

Image courtesy of WordPress

Furthermore, some scientists and philosophers would suggest that we are deeply shaped by our memories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “memories play a role in our knowledge of the world and our personal past. It underwrites our identity and our ties with other people” (Kourken et al. 2017). Professor of philosophy Dr. Françoise Baylis also argues that people are social constructive beings constituted by their relationships, narratives and stories, and these are built of interactions made from retrieving and making memories. There is no doubt that experiences and emotions such as love, fear, joy, and pain can shape who we are. How would these be affected if our brain is constantly exposed to the experiences and emotions of others? Developmental biologist Michael Levin of Tufts University questions what it means to be a coherent individual that has a coherent bundle of memories, and he implies that the hunt for memories gets at the nature of identity (Blackiston et al. 2015). Being part of a brain-brain dyad may have complex repercussions on a person’s concept of self, and the recipient would end up having two types of memories: his/her own memories and “quasi-memories” that have been transferred by others (Hildt, 2011). Not only that, but in cases such as this one, epigenetically modified RNA is being transferred to the recipient and causing specific physiological alterations of neurons (Bédécarrats et al. 2018). How well he/she will be able to distinguish between the two types of memories is up for question.

Professor Elisabeth Hildt from Illinois Institute of Technology states that “one of the central questions is whether there actually is a need for direct brain-to-brain (BTBI) communication.” Technologies such as brain-to-brain interface could bring about more accurate memories in the military, for example, allowing soldiers to learn from previous wars or the past experiences of their colleagues. One could imagine a scenario where BTBI could serve as an aid for Alzheimer’s patients, where instead of using external memories such as diaries and photos to remember the past, the patient’s spouse or family member could just transfer clear-cut memories. Dr. Michaelian Kourken argues that “given the constructive character of internal memory, stable forms of external memory may make a distinct and valuable contribution to remembering” (Kourken et al. 2017).  Yet there is also the argument that since memory is inaccurate in its nature (Hermundstad et al. 2011), there is no guarantee that this transfer will make the memories more trustworthy. Indeed, scientists and ethicists need to work together to make sure that such technology is developed reliably and ethically correct.

________________

Gabriella Caceres is a student double majoring in Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology (NBB) and Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, GA. Her research focus is on oxytocin and its effects on social cognition, but she also has a strong interest for the neurobiology of memory. Gabriella developed a curiosity for neuroethics after taking part in the NBB Paris study abroad program. She is 21 years old and originally from Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

References

A. Bédécarrats et al. (2018) RNA from trained Aplysia can induce an epigenetic engram for long-term sensitization in untrained Aplysia. eNeuro.

Deadwyler S. A., Berger T. W., Sweatt A. J., Song D., Chan R. H., Opris I., et al. . (2013). Donor/recipient enhancement of memory in rat hippocampus. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 7:120.

D.J. Blackiston, T. Shomrat and M. Levin (2015) The stability of memories during brain remodeling: A perspective. Communicative & Integrative Biology. Vol. 8.

D’Urso, A., & Brickner, J. H. (2014). Mechanisms of epigenetic memory. Trends in genetics, 30(6), 230-236.

Hermundstad, A. M., Brown, K. S., Bassett, D. S., & Carlson, J. M. (2011). Learning, memory, and the role of neural network architecture. PLoS computational biology, 7(6), e1002063.

Hildt E (2015). What will this do to me and my brain? Ethical issues in brain-to-brain interfacing. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience; 9:17.

Michaelian, Kourken and Sutton, John, "Memory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Tamburrini G. (2009). Brain to computer communication: ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2, 137–149 10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1

Trimper JB, Wolpe PR and Rommelfanger KS (2014) When “I” becomes “We”: ethical implications of emerging brain-to-brain interfacing technologies. Front. Neuroeng. 7:4.

World Health Organization. (2018). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 11th revision. World Health Organization.

Want to cite this post?




Caceres, G. (2018). An injection of RNA may transfer memories? The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/10/an-injection-of-rna-may-transfer.html

The Neuroethics Blog Series on Black Mirror: The Entire History of You

By Somnath Das

Somnath Das recently graduated from Emory University where he majored in Neuroscience and Chemistry. He will be attending medical school at Thomas Jefferson University starting in the Fall of 2017. The son of two Indian immigrants, he developed an interest in healthcare after observing how his extended family sought help from India's healthcare system to seek relief from chronic illnesses. Somnath’s interest in medicine currently focuses on understanding the social construction of health and healthcare delivery. Studying Neuroethics has allowed him to combine his love for neuroscience, his interest in medicine, and his wish to help others into a multidisciplinary, rewarding practice of scholarship which to this day enriches how he views both developing neurotechnologies and the world around him. 

Humans in the 21st century have an intimate relationship with technology. Much of our lives are spent being informed and entertained by screens. Technological advancements in science and medicine have helped and healed in ways we previously couldn’t dream of. But what unanticipated consequences may be lurking behind our rapid expansion into new technological territory? This question is continually being explored in the British sci-fi TV series Black Mirror, which provides a glimpse into the not-so-distant future and warns us to be mindful of how we treat our technology and how it can affect us in return. This piece is part of a series of posts that will discuss ethical issues surrounding neuro-technologies featured in the show and will compare how similar technologies are impacting us in the real world. 

*SPOILER ALERT* - The following contains plot spoilers for the Netflix television series Black Mirror.

Image courtesy of Flickr user

Kalvicio de las Nieves.

As the population ages, diseases of memory impairment such as Alzheimer’s disease have become of increasing concern across the globe. In fact, for adults over 55, Alzheimer’s is the number one feared disease (more than cancer). According to the Alzheimer’s association, deaths due to heart disease have declined by 14%, whereas deaths arising from Alzheimer’s disease-related causes have risen by 89%. Memory enhancement has also been explored by researchers as a way of enhancing – or dampening – functionally normal memory. Various techniques aimed at enhancing memory have explored the possibility of modulating memory’s various components, ranging from enhancing molecular processes to altering systemic neurotransmission (Stern & Alberini 2013; Suthana et al. 2012).

What if we could use a device that allows us to record our memories in real-time? Black Mirror explores this possibility in an episode entitled, “The Entire History of You,” by proposing a future where every person is implanted with a device behind their ears, called the “grain,” which performs this function. The grain records the user’s life in real time and allows the user to replay and modify past memories. The grain, in essence, serves as a form of memory prosthesis.

Plot Summary and Technology Used

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

“The Entire History of You” begins with Liam, who uses his grain to re-watch a recent interview

repeatedly, thinking he did not perform up to expectations. He uses the grain’s functionality to zoom in on the interviewer’s body language, scrutinizing their responses and subtly hinting how the device encourages paranoid tendencies. At a dinner party, he notices his wife, Ffion, talking to a man, Jonas, that he doesn’t recognize, thus arousing Liam’s suspicions. When the couple returns home, Ffion admits to Liam that she had a relationship with Jonas and that she had lied about the time they spent together. This causes a fight between the couple, and even though they apologize and make-up, Liam’s suspicions continue to linger. He eventually goes downstairs and, under the influence of alcohol, uses his grain to re-watch his wife’s conversations with Jonas at the dinner party. In a fit of rage, Liam drives to Jonas’ house, threatening to cut out Jonas’ grain if he doesn’t delete the memories of his prior relationship with Ffion. The next morning, Liam replays the incident, zooming in on the list of memories Jonas deleted. He noticed that there was footage of Jonas and Ffion having sex that was taken 18 months ago, around the time their daughter, Jodie, was conceived. After confronting Ffion about the footage, it suddenly becomes unclear as to who was the father of Jodie. The episode ends with Liam walking around his house, replaying his memories with Jodie. He then goes to the bathroom and removes the grain using a razor blade.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Everybody is implanted with the grain from birth, so the technology is not considered a form of enhancement (in fact, removing the grain may be so). One of the guests revealed that she had her grain forcibly removed, and that she prefers to remain grain-free. With the grain, the user can record memories in ultra high-definition (evidenced by the fact that Liam was able to zoom in on previous memories), replay them an unlimited number times, and even project their memories to be seen by others. The user can also selectively dampen their memories by deleting either segments or entire memories. What the show leaves unclear, likely on purpose, is how this device interacts with or changes the brain. For example, would Jonas be able to remember his time with Ffion, or at least their emotional connection, despite deleting all of their episodic memories on the grain? And, do these devices enhance or ultimately worsen the brain’s capacity for memory because of decreased reliance

– or decreased dependence – on our own biology?

The Current State of Technology: How close are we to memory BCIs, and how would they work?

While Black Mirror proposes a device that is similar to a camera with video-editing software that interacts with our brain and replaces declarative memory, scientists are currently exploring the use of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to modulate memory in a slightly different manner. The BCIs currently being explored use recorded neural activity to improve and optimize the brain’s own capacity to encode and store memories.

This year has seen a remarkable increase of interest in BCIs and memory modulation from a variety of stakeholders. The U.S. Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA) aims to begin implanting memory prosthetics for veterans with traumatic brain injury in 2018. Kernel, a startup company, also recently revealed its aim to develop a BCI that aids those with memory problems. The company’s goals are largely clinical, aiming to help people suffering from traumatic brain injury or dementias including Alzheimer’s disease. This memory-prosthetic device would be implanted into the hippocampus. In a similar vein to deep brain stimulation (DBS) used to treat Parkinson’s disease, the device will aim to take the brain’s electrical signals and augment them to improve memory. In the context of Kernel’s device, the BCI would supplant the function of the hippocampus, encoding the process of learning into electrical signals and integrating these signals into the cortex.

Logo of the transhumanist movement.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Kernel’s project is largely based off of the research of USC biomedical engineer and neuroscientist Theodore Berger. Berger’s early research focused on Pavlovian conditioning in rabbits; he discovered that as the rabbits were learning to associate a tone with a puff of air – and subsequently blink when the tone was played – one region of their brains displayed a consistent and reliable pattern of electrical activity, indicating learning. His research currently focuses on recording neural substrates of memory and mathematically modeling them for use in memory prosthetic devices – a goal that is part of his Transhumanist aim to eventually create human cyborgs free of disability. He has published data that demonstrates a neuroprosthetic device’s ability to improve non-human primate hippocampal CA1-CA3 firing – a critical circuit in memory formation in the hippocampus (Hampson et al. 2013).

A study by Burke et al. (2013) demonstrated a potential mechanism of how a BCI may improve free recall in humans. Burke’s group recorded electrical activity in epileptic patients during a recall task (these patients already had electrodes implanted in their brain for therapeutic purposes). The intent of their BCI was to record patterns of pre-stimulus hippocampal activity to determine the optimal time to present images to recall later. When asked to recall, BCI patients were presented with words in accordance with the optimal electrical patterns as determined by EEG recording and the BCI, and it was found that the BCI improved the recall of these patients when compared to controls in more sessions than was expected by chance.

Other researchers are devoting increased attention to understanding how our brains encode visual sensory data. In 2011, Jack Gallant and his team successfully developed a model that allowed them to visualize how the brain – specifically the visual cortex – encodes data from natural movies (movies about nature). What remains to be seen, however, is whether Gallant’s et al.’s model is accurate for higher visual areas that process more complex aspects of vision. BCIs in the future could focus on using the findings of Gallant’s team in order to collect and store visual memories, which would hover closer to the technology used in Black Mirror.

Ethical Considerations: What Black Mirror gets right and what it misses

Despite the push by Kernel and others to create memory prosthetics, there remains to be a clear consensus on whether researchers possess enough knowledge of the brain’s memory encoding processes to make such devices. To achieve his own dream of making the devices available to the general public, Berger will have to test the devices on a variety of clinical populations outside of patients with epilepsy and the elderly. Additionally, Berger’s approach involves the codification of memory consolidation in a controlled setting. It could be that, for example, researchers fail to capture the true range of human memory consolidation in their codification, calling into question the ability of computers to replicate a complex process that is influenced by a host of other factors such as emotions and a multitude of physical sensations.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Privacy is also a significant concern. The technology in Black Mirror integrates smoothly and seamlessly with the user’s perception of the world, able to record and replay memories in real-time. The user can replay memories either “in their minds,” or project them on a television screen. The science behind creating a wearable recording technology that is similar to Black Mirror’s is within reach; yet, early versions of wearable recording technology are facing widespread consumer backlash. Google Glass, a pair of “smart glasses” that could take photos on command, faced remarkable negative criticism due to privacy concerns about the data collected by Google. A 2016 study by Takabi, Bhalotiya, and Alohaly found that the many third-party developers for current BCIs used in a wide variety of contexts such as gaming possess virtually unrestricted access to raw EEG data from users. These developers additionally possess a fairly strong locus of control over the stimuli shown to the users, leaving the question of how the users’ data will be used in context. The authors point out that while raw EEG data does have strong implications for clinical research, this data can also be used or sold to other third-parties and used for malicious intents. Additionally, the authors note that the ability of computational to trace brain signals back to users is growing, and therefore even if data is made anonymous, these protections may not be enough. Therefore, as BCIs are used for increasingly personal and therapeutic contexts (such as improving memory), computer scientists, neuroscientists, policymakers, and clinicians must work together to develop stronger protections for both user and patient neural data.

Image courtesy of Armed with Science.

Finally, as BCIs become more available as a treatment option, there will need to be a clear consensus communicated to physicians as to what specific aspects of memory these devices could enhance, and how these aspects of memory are modulated with respect to human memory’s various psychological and anatomical components. As with technologies still in clinical trials involving stimulation of the brain, potential conflation of therapeutic and experimental intents will need to be addressed in the clinic prior to consent and implantation. Bioethicist James Giordano worries that these devices could blur the links between emotion and memory, further threatening the identity of vulnerable patients in a diseased or disabled state. Black Mirror hints that even if these devices were to enhance declarative memory, they could worsen paranoid tendencies and traumatic associations with various memories. In their qualitative study of neurosurgical patients, Lipsman, Zener, & Bernstein (2013) observed that while patients undergoing invasive neurosurgery consider threats to identity as being outweighed by life-threatening conditions, they have considerable doubts about cosmetic and enhancement neurosurgery. Is dementia considered “life-threatening” enough for patients to accept potentially risky BCIs? And how about these devices within enhancement contexts?

Conclusions

The approach and philosophy adopted by Black Mirror of a camera for everybody’s brain may be reflected in the minds and aspirations of those in Silicon Valley; yet, scientists and neuroscientists are currently devoting increased attention on improving the state of internal memory encoding contained within our own biology. In contrast to how memory prosthesis is presented in Black Mirror, scientists and clinicians are investigating these devices for largely therapeutic purposes. Furthermore, the public perception of technologies that seek to record and digitally store memories (such as Google Glass) is that of significant concern. That being said, the safety and science behind memory prosthetic implantation still remains to be thoroughly investigated. Can all aspects of memory be fully coded into a BCI? How do we communicate the realities of memory prosthesis effectively to patients with disabilities and their families? Finally, how do we effectively protect patient neural data from being sold to third-parties or from being identified by others? While Black Mirror is a show meant for entertainment and available neurotechnologies are far from anything close to the “grain” device, science fiction also provides an opportunity for us to consider our current realities and potential futures.

References

Burke, J. F., Merkow, M. B., Jacobs, J., Kahana, M. J., & Zaghloul, K. A. (2014). Brain computer interface to enhance episodic memory in human participants. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1055. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01055

Farah, M. J. (2015). An ethics toolbox for neurotechnology. Neuron, 86(1), 34-37. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.038

Hampson, R. E., Song, D., Opris, I., Santos, L. M., Shin, D. C., Gerhardt, G. A., … Deadwyler, S. A. (2013). Facilitation of Memory Encoding in Primate Hippocampus by a Neuroprosthesis that Promotes Task Specific Neural Firing. Journal of Neural Engineering, 10(6), 066013. http://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/10/6/066013

Lipsman, N., Zener, R., & Bernstein, M. (2009). Personal identity, enhancement and neurosurgery: a qualitative study in applied neuroethics. Bioethics, 23(6), 375-383. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01729.x 

Ramesh, Sunidhi. (2017). The [Sea] Monster Inside Me. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on July 11, 2017, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/05/the-sea-monster-inside-me.html

Sahu, S. (2017). M[Emory] Enhancement and its Implications. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on July 11, 2017, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/03/memory-enhancement-and-its-implications.html

Stern, S. A., & Alberini, C. M. (2013). Mechanisms of memory enhancement. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine, 5(1), 37-53. DOI: 10.1002/wsbm.1196

Want to cite this post?




Das, S. (2017). The Neuroethics Blog Series on Black Mirror: The Entire History of You. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on
, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/08/the-neuroethics-blog-series-on-black_3.html

Reading into the Science: The Neuroscience and Ethics of Enhancement

By Shweta Sahu

Image courtesy of Pexels.

I was always an average student: I was good, just not good enough. I often wondered what my life and grades would be like if I’d had a better memory or learned faster. I remember several exams throughout my high school career where I just could not recall what certain rote memorization facts or specific details were, and now in college, I realize that if I could somehow learn faster, how much time would I save and be able to study even more? Would a better memory have led me to do better on my exams in high school, and would my faster ability to learn new information have increased my GPA?

Such has been the question for years now in the ongoing debates of memory enhancement and cognitive enhancement, respectively. I’m not the only student to have ever felt this way and I’m sure I won’t be the last. Technology and medicine seem to be on the brink of exciting new findings, ones that may help us in ways we’ve never before thought imaginable.

Though neuroscientists are still attempting to understand the intricacies of how memory functions, it has been known since the early 1900’s that memory works in three modes: working memory, short-term memory, and long term memory, each of which are regionalized to different parts of the brain. Working memory, which lasts from seconds to minutes, contains information that can be acted on and processed, not merely maintained by rehearsal. Short term memory on the other hand, is slightly longer in duration and occurs in the prefrontal cortex (think George Miller’s Magic number 7). It is here in short term memory that if an item is rehearsed, it can be “moved” into long term memory, and this long term memory is of particular interest to physicians and clinicians. Long term memory lasts over days, months, or years and is divided into declarative (explicit) memory and nondeclarative (implicit) memory. Declarative memory itself can be further subdivided into episodic memories, which are memories of personal experiences and autobiographical memories, and semantic memory, which is objective knowledge that is factual in nature, deemed “world knowledge.” The brain’s ability to acquire the aforementioned declarative memories depends on the medial temporal lobe regions, which include the amygdala, hippocampus, and the surrounding parahippocampal, perirhinal and entorhinal cortical areas. It is within these structures that memory and learning occur, specifically communication via neurotransmitters and the repeated activation of certain synapses.

Image courtesy of Novalens.

It is also here that enhancement is used, whether it's enhancement via chemical means (notably the neurotransmitters: acetylcholine, dopamine, and serotonin) or enhancement via technological means (TMS, DBS, tDCS, etc.). From studies in humans and animals, it is well known that the hippocampus is crucial for the formation of new long term memories, but since the hippocampus is deep within the brain, electrically stimulating it becomes tricky. This is where stimulation of the entorhinal cortex becomes key, as it is heavily connected to the hippocampus. Both transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are techniques which target specific regions of the brain, as opposed to the chemical equivalent (i.e. drugs) that are not localizable. A revolutionary study done in 2012 by Suthana et al., aimed to test whether DBS of the hippocampus or entorhinal cortex altered memory performance on spatial memory tasks. They found that “entorhinal stimulation applied while the subjects learned locations of landmarks enhanced their subsequent memory of these locations,” though direct hippocampal stimulation did not yield similar results. Moreover, in past studies, TMS has been shown to improve performance on different tasks, but a 2014 study found that repeated TMS over the span of one week could be used to improve memory for events at least 24 hours after the stimulation is given, specifically when tested with “memory tests consisting of a set of arbitrary associations between faces and words that they were asked to learn and remember.” This study is particularly noteworthy because it was done on healthy volunteers with “normal” memory, and essentially those in whom you wouldn’t expect to see marked improvement since their brains are already ‘functioning at their normal capacities.’

Enhancement via chemical means is also rising in popularity among adults and college students. For example, Ritalin and Adderall, two commonly prescribed stimulants for ADHD, increase the extracellular concentration of dopamine in the brain by blocking the dopamine transporter. Patients with hyperactivity-impulsive ADHD have changes to their dopamine transport gene, which is why prescribing these stimulants can alleviate those symptoms. However, Ritalin and Adderall are now being used off-label and are being abused by nonmedical users (those who are not being prescribed it) in order to try to enhance their performance. One intriguing qualitative study found that “stimulants’ effects on users’ emotions and feelings are an important contributor to users’ perceptions of improved academic performance” and thus, felt cognitively enhanced. Of the college students interviewed, many reported a feeling “up”, and one stated, “your energy level is higher… it’s just easier to function at a highly productive level.” Further, students reported increased drive and motivation, saying that Adderall produced surplus energy that was discharged through an “internal push, pressure.” Moreover, they claimed these stimulant medications allowed them to be “interested” in the material which thereby increased their feeling of enjoyment. All this is to say that these students did feel cognitively enhanced and saw nothing wrong with it. In contrast, some students think that the unauthorized use of prescription medications is cheating, whether it be to enhance motivation, information, or recall. In fact, some school administrators see it the same way, with Duke being the most notable example of a university that has explicitly stated in its Student Conduct code that such unintended usage is deemed “cheating.”

That brings us to the questionable ethics of cognitive and memory enhancement, both chemical and electrical. The current state of affairs is divided and there is no distinguishable line in the sand. One view in medicine is “first, do no harm.” Maurice Bernstein, MD, says that transforming physicians from healers to enhancers has the potential to “degrade” this standard of doing no harm. Richard M. Restak, MD, is a clinical professor of neurology, and provides another, more technical answer when asked if he would prescribe enhancement. He says, “I don’t prescribe them… Such use is definitely off-label and puts the physician at a disadvantage should something go wrong." However, Dr. Chatterjee, a prominent neuroethicist and inventor of the term “cosmetic neurology” offers up a realistic view that “medical economics will drive some physicians to embrace the enhancement role with open arms, especially if it means regaining some of the autonomy lost to managed care plans.” So much of medicine is now dictated by protocols and standard operating procedures, but Dr. Chatterjee suggests this may change if physicians are given this new option to reclaim some of their authority, putting the decision making-power back in their hands.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, physicians are not the only ones divided on this issue; the general public seems to be even more so. A proponent of enhancement and author of Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, Ronald Bailey, argues that disease is a state of dis-ease. He further states, “if patients are unsatisfied with some aspect of their lives and doctors can help them with very few risks, then why shouldn't they do so?" However, Deane Alban, researcher, writer, and manager of BeBrainFit.com offers a contrasting opinion. She writes,

“Smart drugs have side effects, are almost always obtained quasi-legally, and may not even work. You have only one brain. You can artificially stimulate it now for perceived short-term benefits. Or you can nourish and protect it so that it stays sharp for a lifetime. The decision is a no-brainer.”

But is it? By not taking advantage of such enhancing technologies will we get left behind? Now the issue turns to that of implicit coercion, where one feels like he/she has to do something or take something in order to keep up even if he himself/ she herself doesn’t want to. This further raises the question of whether employers will begin contemplating enhancement for their employees, even preferring those who are functioning at a higher level than others. Speaking in terms of efficiency, why not take the more productive team member? Already, air force pilots are required (and some medical residents are encouraged) to take Modafinil, a stimulant originally intended to treat narcolepsy and sleep disorders. If the work force continuously demands excellence of its employees, why not expand that and take a cognitive enhancer, since they make employees less prone to error, able to work and concentrate for longer hours, and operate more efficiently? If surgeons and restaurant employees are “coerced” to wash their hands and follow other protocol, this step may not be all that far away for the rest of us if these enhancement drugs are proved safe and efficacious.

That said, if there is a way for me to enhance my memory, learn faster, motivate myself to learn more, and enjoy what I do learn, I think I would take it *if it is not considered cheating and *if they are deemed effective. Lots of literature exists out on the internet as to how patients with ADHD feel that they are brought to a comparable level as others when they take this medication. However, there are several conflicting results as to whether these Smart Drugs can help enhance those beyond the “normal capacity.” Yet, if we can’t make people who use it illegally stop (and we cannot completely and irrevocably accomplish this), is there a time in the near future when we will legalize it for everyone, and those who choose to take Smart Drugs can take them according their own volition? At that point, I might just take it. I don’t want to get left behind. Do you?



Want to cite this post?

Sahu, S. (2017). Reading into the Science: The Neuroscience and Ethics of Enhancement. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/05/reading-into-science-neuroscience-and.html

M[Emory] Enhancement and its Implications

By Shweta Sahu

Imagine a situation in which you suffer from severe anterograde amnesia, a form of short term memory loss, and can’t recall information presented to you even 7 seconds before-- let alone being able to remember the one thing you went to Target to buy, but forgot. Such is the case of Clive Wearing, a man known for his lack of short term memory. His wife notes, “you ask him a question and he’ll give you an answer but while he’s giving me the answer, he’s already forgotten the question. That’s how short it is.” He himself notes “the brain has been totally inactive—day and night the same—no thoughts at all.” Though this is one of the most severe cases of amnesia observed, it underscores how crucial memory is not only to every day functioning, but also for one’s sense of self. Autobiographical memories and the ability to recall these emotional and important events are an integral component of one’s identity. These events, in turn, get tied into personal narratives that our personalities are built on. In the case of Mr. Wearing, he is stuck in this personality because of the damage to his hippocampus and closely related brain regions, an area of the brain necessary for transferring information from short term to long term memory. As a result, he reports that he feels like he is dead and is constantly waking up into a new reality.

Video courtesy of YouTube

Realizing how significant memory is one thing, but the ability to recover or enhance memory is another. At our recent Neuroethics and Neuroscience in the News event, Dr. Inman, a postdoctoral fellow at Emory Department of Neurosurgery discussed “memory enhancement through brain recording and stimulation, and the implications of brain prosthetics for memory, identity, and autonomy.” In particular, his work focuses on patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy. These patients also often suffer from memory impairment and are often willing to participate in research while they are in the hospital to help localize the location where their seizures start.

Dr. Inman conducts research by recording and stimulating through electrodes directly embedded of the brain. Brain stimulation has been used since as early as the 1900’s to treat intractable neurological diseases. There are two general forms of brain stimulation: invasive (such as deep brain stimulation [DBS] and electrocorticography [ECoG]) and noninvasive (including transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation).

The current state of affairs:

A 2012 study conducted by Suthana et al suggested that stimulation of the entorhinal cortex results in enhancement of spatial memory. However, a more recent study performed by Jacobs et al refuted this claim, and found that memory was in fact impaired when the entorhinal cortex was stimulated. The study done by Jacobs et al is part of a larger project by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) entitled RAM (Restoring Active Memory), the goal of which is to create an implantable device, similar to a pacemaker for the brain, that can restore an individual’s memory post traumatic brain injury.

Image courtesy of Pew Research Study

Seeing as human memory enhancement is the goal, it’s not unreasonable to consider the implications of these technologies in a general public of consumers already eager to experiment with a number of cognitive enhancers from pill and drinks to wearable technologies. A recent study surveyed the “public opinion on the future use of brain implants” and revealed that as of March 2016, Americans were more accepting of an implanted device if its effects were temporary and controllable. Moreover, the study also found that Americans were especially reluctant to enhance cognitive function beyond natural abilities, as 67% said that an implanted device for improved cognition and concentration would be taking technology too far.

Dr. Inman indicates that scientists are still trying to figure out what’s happening in the brain during memory creation and which paradigms of stimulation result in which clinically-meaningful enhancement effects, as well as, any potential side effects. Furthermore, Inman states that in his current work stimulating brain regions involved in emotional memory enhancement, they have been able to enhance memory for basic objects by stimulating during learning one day and showing better memory of the previously stimulated objects the next day. Studies like this suggest that there is promise in the field, but there are still many studies to be done and to fully understand before we can apply these kinds of techniques as therapies for memory disorders.

Where are we heading?

Dr. Inman remarks that how the media describes new technologies is important for how the public understands these technologies and, consequently, how the consumer market responds. That brings the question then, to where the field of memory enhancement and brain-computer-interfaces (BCI) are headed? Whether it’s some Harry Potter “pensieve”-like thing where we can directly enable others to visualize our memories or whether its controlling a robot with a brain cap scenario, we are certainly going to come across ethical issues of “to enhance” or “not to enhance,” with strong arguments for both. What I mean by ethical issues is more than just if cognitive enhancement is worth the potential risks, but rather, I want to consider questions such as: (1) if we have the ability to enhance, should we enhance, (2) through the use of cognitive therapy, would we be “altering an individual” and “eroding their character,” (3) an individual’s physical safety (4) efficacy; (5) non-physical harms such as threats to autonomy and authenticity, (6) what is the difference between implicit coercion and responsibility in the case of enhancement, (7) would quality of life would be better post enhancement? Could it be that history may repeat itself with BCI in a similar manner as with cognitive enhancement? I predict we will continue to encounter similar conflicts as we come across with currently available therapies, whether it be do-it-yourself tDCS or non-prescribed (and theoretically illegally used) Adderall or Ritalin.

Where should we draw the line?

Image courtesy of Google Images

As was the issue with nootropics and cognitive enhancement, we will most likely come across familiar therapy versus enhancement blurred lines debate with memory enhancement. Several points of view exist in this debate, take, for example, the beliefs of physicians who prescribe these enhancements/ therapies for the general public. As an aspiring physician myself, I’m not sure where I stand. One professional mandate of medicine is “do no harm.” Maurice Bernstein, MD, says that in transforming physicians from healers to enhancers has the potential to “degrade” this standard. Furthermore, Howard Brody, MD, PhD, a family practice physician and bioethicist, agrees with this sentiment, adding that “one of a physician's ethical duties is to avoid disproportionate risks of harm that are not balanced by the prospect of compensating medical benefits." On the other hand, these opinions can be directly contrasted with the wants and views of the general public. A proponent of enhancement and author of Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, Ronald Bailey, argues that disease is a state of dis-ease. He further states, “if patients are unsatisfied with some aspect of their lives and doctors can help them with very few risks, then why shouldn't they do so?" Of particular interest to the military are concerns for veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI). This debate is uniquely complicated as veterans who are exposed to high personal and emotional risk during their active duty careers. Are we (as recipients of their protection and sacrifices) not responsible for returning them back to their set point or enhancing their capabilities to that beyond the typically accepted ‘norm’ to ensure greater safety to our civilians and warfighters alike? Many veterans who have seen unimaginably gruesome events and themselves sustained moral injuries. Moreover, if they do receive some type of brain chip or alternate implant, can we allow them to keep these implants after their service? If a brain chip was implanted for warfighters in the line of duty have they earned it or is it even rightful for them to have one? Not only that, but also consider, if this is a physical implant, then it is a part of you* or is it considered to be military property?

When asked if he himself would get a brain chip, Dr. Inman replied “No—I don’t need to have brain surgery and I work just fine without it… I believe we are developing this for therapy not enhancement of a normal, healthy function.” Clearly, there are those who feel otherwise, but the answer for most probably isn’t so black-or-white. Where do you stand?

Want to cite this post?



Sahu, S. (2017). M[Emory] Enhancement and its Implications. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/03/memory-enhancement-and-its-implications.html

Is memory enhancement right around the corner?

By Ryan Purcell

“Everyone has had the experience of struggling to remember long lists of items or complicated directions to get somewhere,” Dr. Justin Sanchez of DARPA said in a recent press release. “Today we are discovering how implantable neurotechnologies can facilitate the brain’s performance of these functions.” The US Department of Defense is interested in how the brain forms memories because hundreds of thousands of soldiers – or “warfighters” as they are now called – have suffered from traumatic brain injury (TBI) and some have severe memory problems. Beyond the military, TBI is a major public health concern that affects millions of Americans as patients and caregivers and is incredibly expensive. A breakthrough treatment is needed and for that, ambitious research is required.

But does this research agenda end at treating disease, or could these findings also be applied to memory enhancement goals?

Beyond helping us to grab all the items on the grocery list and find the car in the parking lot, our memories fundamentally help us to form our sense of identity and personal narrative. It is a common observation in profound dementias and Alzheimer’s disease, that family members feel like their loved one who has lost the ability to recall recent events or names or to form new memories is no longer the same person they once were. While this basic truth about the importance of memory is persuasive as an argument for the significance of this research, it also brings the risks involved sharply into focus: tinkering with an individual’s memories and their ability to form them can have the effect of profoundly altering their identity and sense of self.

In the past, DARPA has been very open about its goals for human enhancement so it is fair to consider the development of memory enhancement as a possible, if not likely, outcome of this research. The umbrella program at DARPA, called RAM for Restoring Active Memory (and invoking the term for computer memory) is what Dr. Sanchez was commenting on in the opening lines of this post. Examples of RAM projects can be found here and here and the stated goal of the project is to develop an implantable (i.e. inside-the-skull) device that can restore an individual’s memory abilities. This is notable because to the public, restoring impaired memory and enhancing memory function are seen as very different aims. In a recent Pew Research survey, 67% of US adults taking part in the study felt that a device that enhances ability far beyond that of any human known to date is taking technology too far and 69% are worried about technology like this.

An improved, sharper, more reliable memory would be a useful improvement, right? If you give me the option between two computers and one has a much better memory, that one will always be my choice. The reality for human beings is probably not so simple. Consider Jill Price, one of only a few people in the world known to have Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM). In the original description of her case, Price seems surprisingly ordinary in many ways. She earned mediocre grades in school and worked off and on as an office assistant after college. However, her autobiographical memory is astounding. Name a date after 1974 and she can tell you what day of the week it was, what she did that day, if any notable public events occurred on that date, and what the weather was like. Most of us would struggle to recount what we did on any given day last month, let alone decades ago. It is surprising, then, that her incredible memory did not make her extraordinarily successful in school or her career and, in fact, she described her memory as being rather burdensome, preventing her from letting anything go. After Price’s case became known to researchers, others came forward to be studied as well. After thoroughly vetting the volunteers, and studying the most likely HSAM cases, researchers concluded that these extraordinary autobiographical memory abilities were not paired with a more generalized genius or even improved memory in other areas. These cases highlight the critical balance between remembering and forgetting that probably goes a long way in helping us get through our daily lives.

We also know from nonhuman animal studies that enhanced memory does not always lead to positive outcomes. At brain synapses, NMDA receptors are critical mediators of neuroplasticity. Genetically increasing the expression of a subunit of the NMDA receptor, NR2B, in mice improved the animals’ learning and memory across multiple paradigms. However, further testing demonstrated that these animals were also were more sensitive to some painful stimuli, highlighting the possibility that it may be difficult to selectively augment one neural process in a purely positive way. This, however, is just one example of a memory enhancement study. Additional studies in rodents have found that spatial memory can be enhanced by stimulating the entorhinal cortex and some of the negative effects of TBI on learning and memory can be ameliorated with stimulation of the medial septal nucleus, an input to the hippocampus. Patients suffering from intractable epilepsy have made an enormous contribution to neuroscience for several decades by volunteering for intracranial cortical and deep brain stimulation studies. Evidence from human studies is now emerging to suggest that stimulation of memory structures and pathways in the medial temporal lobe can also enhance certain types of memory.

If an intracranial memory-enhancing device is developed in the near future, who should get it (and who would get to make that call)? To me, the risk benefit calculation is much easier than a similar one on cognitive enhancing pills. Opening up the skull is a rather significant barrier that will likely keep all but those who need it the most from considering such an intervention for enhancement (versus therapeutic purposes). Regarding enhancement, if soldiers were to receive implanted devices aimed at improving their performance in combat, what happens when their tour of duty is completed, or when they retire? Moreover, during initial testing of any devices in healthy subjects, there are significant and unique consent issues in the military due to power imbalances between officers and subordinates. Even in relatively recent history, there have been serious problems in human subjects research in the military, which have come to light as documents are de-classified.

There are other, non-invasive neurotechnologies also in development that have been discussed here and elsewhere before and it’s likely that the technology will only become less invasive, smaller and, like everything else, wireless in the near future. In addition to helping TBI patients recover memory abilities, DARPA’s warfighter enhancement goals probably center around improving memory under combat conditions of extreme stress and fatigue, factors that can obviously impair memory performance. “Military personnel carry a growing responsibility to recount, report and act upon knowledge gleaned from previous experiences, and how well those experiences are recalled can make all the difference in how well these individuals perform in combat and other challenging situations,” Dr. Sanchez explained in a recent press release on the program. Human errors were blamed for the deadly US airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan last year that claimed 42 lives. Clearly, there are also potential costs for not pursuing enhancement technology.

Military personnel are not the only professionals who need to perform at a high level under difficult conditions. Could surgeons and airline pilots also benefit from memory enhancing technology? These examples are often invoked in enhancement discussions because this type of work impacts other people’s lives and mistakes can be fatal. Therefore, technology that the military finds to be useful will likely have applications elsewhere in society. Consider another DARPA project, the Internet. Also as the technologies are improved (smaller, less invasive, more affordable), it’s likely that there will be a nontrivial consumer market.

Other DARPA-funded neuroscience research has also been discussed previously on this Blog. That time, the researcher was studying the way the brain interprets narrative storytelling and seemed genuinely uneasy about the possibilities for advanced (neuro)propaganda coming from his work. Here, there is a clear potential medical benefit to a group of people who currently have a dearth of treatment options. Nonetheless, the synopsis from DARPA’s own PR team is as follows:

“The study aims to give researchers the ability to “read” the neural processes involved in memory formation and retrieval, and even predict when a volunteer is about to make an error in recall. The implanted electrodes also provide a means of sending signals to specific groups of neurons, with the goal of influencing the accuracy of recall.”

I, for one, am not overly thrilled about the idea of government scientists “influencing the accuracy of [my] recall” but maybe I just went a bit overboard with Stranger Things. To be clear, understanding the neural signatures of memory encoding, and how that process goes awry after brain injury, is fundamentally important work for basic and clinical neuroscience. Yet as memory enhancement research moves forward, it will be important to continue to keep neuroethics in mind which, surprisingly, is not the norm. A recent review article of the field never once even gives a nod to current or future ethical concerns. Given the fundamental link between memory and identity, research in this area should proceed with consideration of potential nonphysical harms of memory interventions. Finally, as noted above, the Internet as we know it today is in large part thanks to DARPA research, which is a bit ironic because now, with the Internet at our fingertips, who needs to remember anything anymore?

Want to cite this post?



Purcell, R. (2016). Is memory enhancement right around the corner? The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2016/12/is-memory-enhancement-right-around.html

Memory, Obesity, and Free Will

By Carlie Hoffman

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Do you remember the telephone game? One child comes up with a phrase (e.g. “I love to run”) and then whispers that phrase to the child sitting next to her. This child then whispers what she heard to the child sitting next to her, and so on. By the time the phrase reaches the final child, what started out as “I love to run” could have been transformed into “She shoved a nun,” a complete distortion of the initial sentiment. Unfortunately, a similar telephone game can, and often does, occur in the popular news. This phenomenon was showcased by Dr. Marise Parent’s recent publication, which received considerable press coverage. Dr. Parent, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at Georgia State University and the speaker at our April Neuroethics and Neuroscience in the News journal club, explained how her data linking consumption of a sucrose meal to formation of a food memory was transformed into media headlines claiming “Sweets can help you stay in shape” and “Don’t skip dessert. It can help you eat healthier.” A perfect grown-up example of the telephone game at work.

Dr. Parent’s research at Georgia State focuses on memory in both humans and rodents. Parent explained that there are two major types of memory: semantic memory and episodic memory. Semantic memory refers to memories of facts (e.g. A lake is a large body of water surrounded by land), while episodic memory refers to autobiographical memories of events and experiences (e.g. I went to the lake last Saturday). Episodic memory also includes memories of past meals and provides a record of food intake that lasts long after you have finished eating. These food memories then influence your future eating behavior-- for instance, if you remember that you ate a large breakfast, you may decide to have a lighter lunch [1].



The brain region most closely associated with memory is the hippocampus, which derives its name from the Greek word for “seahorse.” In addition to being involved in general memory formation and retrieval, the hippocampus plays a large role in episodic memory, including the formation of food memories. Parent explained that the hippocampus has receptors for distention, satiety, and other food-related signals [2, 3], and that damage to the hippocampus results in increased food intake [4]. Furthermore, dorsal hippocampal neurons are specifically involved in the formation of episodic memories [5]. Parent showed data indicating that rats subjected to inactivation of their dorsal hippocampal neurons after ingesting a sucrose meal ate their next sucrose meal sooner and ate more during this meal as compared to when their dorsal hippocampal neurons were unaltered [6]. A subsequent study determined that when a rat ingested sucrose, there was increased expression of a marker of synaptic plasticity in its dorsal hippocampus. Expression of this synaptic plasticity marker is associated with memory formation, suggesting that the rat was forming a memory of its sucrose meal [7].

Comparison of the human hippocampus and a seahorse, image

courtesy of Wikipedia

These data raise an interesting question about the role of free will in feeding behavior: do we have conscious control over what we eat, or are we just slaves to our food memories? If our free will is not sufficient to control what we eat and we are driven entirely by food memories, then we cannot be blamed for our feeding behavior-- a conclusion that has important repercussions for obesity and other food-related disorders. Obesity was recently labeled a disease by the American Medical Association (though there is contention about this classification). Some suggest that designating obesity as a disease allows blame for the condition to shift from being centered on the obese individual to being centered on forces beyond the obese individual’s control. If obesity is the result of forces beyond our control (like food memory formation), then obese individuals are simply victims of their obesity-- their food addiction is beyond their control and cannot be altered by force of will. Yet, food memory formation is not entirely out of our control. Parent explained that attention to food consumption alters the formation of a food memory, such that being distracted while you eat impairs the formation of a food memory and increases future food intake, while increased attention, or mindfulness, while you eat enhances the formation of a food memory and decreases future intake [8, 9]. For example, if you eat a piece of pizza while watching a movie, your memory of eating the pizza will be impaired and you will eat more food later on. Conversely, if you focus on the texture of the crust and the spiciness of the pepperoni while eating the slice of pizza, your memory of eating the pizza will be enhanced and you will eat less food later on. Thus, the influence of mindfulness on food memory formation suggests that we have a conscious role in what we eat and reintroduces free will into our feeding behavior (though free will is still a rather complex topic, as previously discussed on the blog here and here).

After publishing her findings on food memory formation in an article entitled, “Sweet orosensation induces Arc expression in dorsal hippocampal CA1 neurons in an experience-dependent manner [7],” a press release was written and published by Georgia State describing Parent’s work. Parent worked closely with the writer of the press release to ensure that her findings were accurately described and interpreted, and a press release entitled “Consuming Sweets Forms Memories That May Control Eating Habits, Neuroscience Study Finds” was published in November 2015. Though Parent did not have a problem with the title of the press release, the title made a small generalization that had huge implications for how the media interpreted Parent’s work: it erroneously broadened the “sweet orosensation” described in Parent’s article to generally “consuming sweets.” This seemingly minor generalization attributed memory formation to eating sweets instead of to the consumption of a meal that was comprised of sucrose. Soon after the Georgia State press release was published, Parent’s research was discussed by journals and news sources around the world, including Science Daily, the Daily Mail, ZME Science, The Atlanta Business Chronicle, The Science Explorer, and many others. Just like the telephone game, Parent’s findings became more and more distorted over time: starting with the claim that sweets form memories that may help control eating, articles were soon declaring that people should eat sweets with every meal and that eating desserts will help you eat healthier, eat less, and stay in shape.

This unanticipated media coverage raised a few serious questions for Parent: Is bad news coverage better than no news coverage? And, do researchers have ethical and social responsibilities to ensure that their findings are interpreted correctly?

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Many scientists are excited by the prospect of having their research discussed in popular media, both because of the scientific awareness that arises from such discussion and also because of the prestige that often accompanies news coverage. However, as occurred with Parent's work, sometimes the media misinterprets scientific findings and then raises awareness about these misinterpretations. The detrimental effects of spreading inaccurate research claims can be substantial, potentially leading to negative public health consequences (think vaccines and autism). The headlines inspired by misconceptions of Parent’s work also have the potential to negatively impact health, with some articles proposing new dieting regimens based on chocolate.



Faced with the increasing number of news articles that misinterpreted her work, Parent was torn as to whether she should correct the media. Though she wanted there to be accurate news coverage of her findings, she explained that there was little incentive for her to correct the headlines. As of yet, her scientific reputation remains unharmed by this runaway media coverage (though the question remains as to whether her reputation will be tarnished by these false interpretations in the future) and she stated that writing a correction article would not provide her with any monetary or career advancement-- the time spent writing a correction would not result in scientific publications to improve her publication record nor would it result in grant money to help fund her research.

Furthermore, though Parent and others believe that scientists have the responsibility to produce a scientifically-literate society, which includes monitoring the information that is disseminated to the public, such monitoring often isn’t common practice. As Parent stated, there is little incentive for scientists or universities to act on their ethical responsibility to educate the public. The mantra within the science community is often described as “publish or perish”-- publish as many papers as you can or you will not have a successful career-- and the field often emphasizes scientific success and career advancement over scientific advancement and the pursuit of truth. In some instances, this emphasis on personal success has led to people cutting corners and sacrificing the quality of their science to obtain a publication. Recent examples include the retracted Science article describing the influence of lobbying on people’s opinions on gay marriage, and the finding that a large proportion of previously published psychology studies cannot be replicated.

A cultural shift is needed that will move scientists toward the promotion of the greater good of science and away from the sole promotion of the greater good of their careers. To reach this goal, scientific training should incorporate the basics of science communication and should emphasize the value of interfacing with the public. Additionally, there should be more incentive for both the researcher and the research institution to ensure that scientific findings are accurately portrayed by the media. Such incentives may appear in the form of additional watchdog sites, such as Quackwatch, or increased frowning-upon of bad scientific news coverage. This discouragement of incorrect news stories will raise emphasis on good media coverage and will give researchers more incentive to pay attention to what the media is saying about their work. Alternatively, rewarding good communicators through promotion within their institution and through funding incentives may be even more effective than punitive measures.

Understandably, such wide-scale changes cannot happen overnight. In the meantime, researchers must use caution when describing their research to the media and we should all strive toward the goal of creating a society where the telephone game is played solely among children and does not encroach into popular media.

References:



1. Higgs S. Memory and Its Role in Appetite Regulation. Physiol Behav. 2005;85(1):67-72. Epub 2005/06/01. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.04.003. PubMed PMID: 15924907.



2. Wallner-Liebmann S, Koschutnig K, Reishofer G, Sorantin E, Blaschitz B, Kruschitz R, Unterrainer HF, Gasser R, Freytag F, Bauer-Denk C, Schienle A, Schafer A, Mangge H. Insulin and Hippocampus Activation in Response to Images of High-Calorie Food in Normal Weight and Obese Adolescents. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010;18(8):1552-1557. Epub 2010/02/20. doi: 10.1038/oby.2010.26. PubMed PMID: 20168310.



3. Davidson TL, Jarrard LE. A Role for Hippocampus in the Utilization of Hunger Signals. Behavioral & Neural Biology. 1993;59(2):167-171. Epub 1993/03/01. PubMed PMID: 8476385.



4. Davidson TL, Chan K, Jarrard LE, Kanoski SE, Clegg DJ, Benoit SC. Contributions of the Hippocampus and Medial Prefrontal Cortex to Energy and Body Weight Regulation. Hippocampus. 2009;19(3):235-252. Epub 2008/10/03. doi: 10.1002/hipo.20499. PubMed PMID: 18831000; PMCID: PMC2649976.



5. Veyrac A, Allerborn M, Gros A, Michon F, Raguet L, Kenney J, Godinot F, Thevenet M, Garcia S, Messaoudi B, Laroche S, Ravel N. Memory of Occasional Events in Rats: Individual Episodic Memory Profiles, Flexibility, and Neural Substrate. J Neurosci. 2015;35(19):7575-7586. Epub 2015/05/15. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.3941-14.2015. PubMed PMID: 25972182.



6. Henderson YO, Smith GP, Parent MB. Hippocampal Neurons Inhibit Meal Onset. Hippocampus. 2013;23(1):100-107. Epub 2012/08/29. doi: 10.1002/hipo.22062. PubMed PMID: 22927320.



7. Henderson YO, Nalloor R, Vazdarjanova A, Parent MB. Sweet Orosensation Induces Arc Expression in Dorsal Hippocampal Ca1 Neurons in an Experience-Dependent Manner. Hippocampus. 2016;26(3):405-413. Epub 2015/09/20. doi: 10.1002/hipo.22532. PubMed PMID: 26386270.



8. Higgs S, Williamson AC, Attwood AS. Recall of Recent Lunch and Its Effect on Subsequent Snack Intake. Physiol Behav. 2008;94(3):454-462. Epub 2008/04/19. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.02.011. PubMed PMID: 18420236.



9. Robinson E, Aveyard P, Daley A, Jolly K, Lewis A, Lycett D, Higgs S. Eating Attentively: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Food Intake Memory and Awareness on Eating. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(4):728-742. Epub 2013/03/01. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.045245. PubMed PMID: 23446890; PMCID: PMC3607652.



Want to cite this post?



Hoffman, C. (2016). Memory, Obesity, and Free Will. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2016/05/memory-obesity-and-free-will.html