Couldn't help myself ;)
For those of you who couldn't be bothered with reading Professor Zwicker's email, here's a quick synopsis of the article from the NY Times. Basically scientists are on the verge of being able to surpress one's memory, logically of a traumatic and psychologically debiliating event. Controlling a molecule called PKMzeta, using the ZIP drug to surpress it, memory in mice was erased. And researchers contend that humans are not too far behind.
So what are the applications of such a treatment? Say you had some sort of horrible experience, and the memory of said experience limited your ability to carry out daily activities. Or you were addicted to some drug, and erasing the body's memory of taking said drug would cure your addiction. From this standpoint, the therapeutic benefits of memory wipes are clear, and frankly should be wholeheartedly pursued, as we've already discussed how therapy is relatively mild compared to "enhancement" and things of that nature.
Does memory determine who we are? Would I be the same if a terrible happening that altered who I was was wiped from my mind? The fact that such a mood-altering event is unnatural and not something you're inherently born with might argue no, but what of the events that make you a better person, that improve your outlook and general well-being? You weren't born with those, so should we wipe them out? But if we should use this argument, what of life-altering conditions such as cancer? Surely such an earth-shattering disease might have a large influence in a person's "being," but who would hesitate to eradicated it at first thought? In that, I think that "bad memories" can just be considered another disease to be cured.
There are concerns about the risks of multiple memories being inadvertently lost, or erasing memories of crimes or bad behavior, "blocking your conscience" in a way. But if this technology is used in a highly scrutinized and limited way, and is failproof, then I suppose we don't have to worry about these qualms, until we the true nature of memory wipes.
On the topic of conscience blocking, however, take for example a serial killer that repents, and then forgets his crimes. Arguably it wouldn't be right to absolve him or her from these weighty memories that form the moral conscience. But what of someone that accidentally killed a pedestrian while driving with poor visibility? Should he or she be able to wipe that memory, even if they were charged of manslaughter? Just some food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think Jeff wins Best Titles...
On the surface, erasing the memory of a serial killer seems worse than erasing the memories that haunt a basically good person who "accidentally killed a pedestrian while driving with poor visibility," as in the case that you brought up. The serial killer, one could say, should be left to suffer with the memories of his crimes; the accidental murderer, meanwhile, should not be punished with such memories when he never intended to kill in the first place.
However, it can also be argued that the memories that haunt the more innocent are actually more useful. The serial killer killed his victims on purpose; he knew exactly what he was doing, and presumably he had some sort of motive. The driver, on the other hand, hit a pedestrian entirely by accident. Although it is theoretically possible that it was not in any way the driver's fault (for example, as in the case of a driver who hits an unsupervised child running into the road), generally speaking there is some recklessness involved. A driver who hits a pedestrian while driving in conditions of poor visibility, as in this example, probably should have either decided not to drive or driven more carefully in these conditions. Terrible as the experience of hitting a pedestrian is for such a driver, it functions as a learning experience: the driver will be more careful in the future.
This is the real difference between erasing the memory of a serial killer and erasing the memory of a well-intentioned accidental killer. Both killers' memories induce guilt, but the result of this guilt is different in each case. The guilt of the serial killer may or may not cause him to refrain from killing again; it will affect him in a very broad sense. The guilt of the driver, on the other hand, will haunt him in a more penetrating way. Every time he steps into a car, he will think of the pedestrian that he accidentally killed, and this thought will guide his actions and cause him to drive more carefully.
This is the function of memory, and it is an important one. As unpleasant as some memories may be, they are learning experiences that affect day-to-day life tremendously. Allowing people to erase memories, especially if it is in order to get rid of guilt, can have a social cost that should be factored into any decision made about this issue.
Science never ceases to amaze me with its constant progress into topics that I wouldn’t have thought possible, but at the most the article about PKMzeta and its manipulation has left me less than impressed. The article talks about how the memory is preserved in the form of a network of cells. The vast amount of memories that each person receives during his or her lifetime would thus be spread out amount millions of neurons. I might be a cynic, but it seems extremely difficult, nay, down right impossible, to go into this vast network and selectively excise a single memory, let along a whole chain of connected memories that would be required for a person to forget even a simple event or action. So the problem of the serial killer forgetting all his crimes seems completely implausible. The preciseness with which the treatment would need to be applied seems highly unlikely given today’s technology.
A more serious issue arises even if the treatment could work. The network of neurons seems so interconnected that ripping out a certain portion would inevitably affect some other part. In this case, it would mean that some other memories would be altered or lost altogether. If the damage were great enough, would the person obtain symptoms that are reminiscent of Alzheimer’s? The possibility seems very likely. Memories are also an essential part in one consciousness: our past experiences help define who we are. To alter this could inevitably alter our consciousness, and thus our personality as well. It just doesn’t seem worth it. I have always been a proponent of progress, and I encourage researchers to study this field. However, don’t expect me to be among the first to sign up for this new memory treatment, no matter how bad the memories are.
Post a Comment