Imagine a future where you can modify your memories, what would be the first memory you would get rid of? Would it be the cringe-worthy time when no one showed up to your sweet sixteen party? The first time you got into a car accident? Or maybe the time someone close to you passed away? The possibilities are endless! But at what point do we draw the line? Would we elect to forget our first heartbreak? Or the first time we failed an exam? Should we even consider going down this route? After all, our memories essentially define our existence and shape who we are.
Dr. Vukov brought up many of these points when he gave a lecture to our neuroscience seminar class on the ethics of memory modification. He opened up the lecture with the idea of Brave New World Neuroethics— an approach to understudying ethical concerns of neuroscience research and innovation in a way that is “brand new”. Basically, Brave New World Neuroethics claims that we cannot utilize past generations’ morality to understand this seemingly new moral territory. It makes sense, doesn’t it? Morality seems to be an ever-changing entity that molds itself to fit the mores and folkways of the current generation. However, Dr. Vukov disagrees with this. Yes, neuroscience will bring up ethical questions in new ways, but at the end of the day the questions brought up can be simplified down to questions that have always plagued philosophers—Is it the right thing to do? What is right? What is a good life? How does it look like? What is our true self? Is it constant or dynamic? What is an identity? The questions can go on, but I think you can see that the crux of the ethical concerns remained the same throughout time.
Memory modification may seem like it is lightyears away from our grasp, but current research shows potential for expediting it. In his lecture, Dr. Vukov discusses several propranolol studies; propranolol is a beta-blocker used to control heart rhythm, treat angina, and reduce high blood pressure. Interestingly, beta-blockers also seem to function as memory consideration blockers for emotionally charged memories. The first study he discussed was the Initial Study (Cahill, et al., 1994). Participants in the study were either given a propranolol or a placebo; they were then shown slides that were paired with either an emotional or neutral narrative. The participants were tested a week later to see if they could remember the slides. The researchers discovered that memory for the neutral slides did not differ, however, memory for the emotional slides was significantly heightened for the placebo participants in comparison to the propranolol participants. What this seemed to suggest is that propranolol dulled the consolidation for the emotionally charged memories.
The Fear Conditioning Studies ( Kindt et all., 2009) fear conditioned the control and propranolol groups through the use of terrifying images and a neutral tone. After some time, they administered propranolol to the test group and exposed both groups to the conditioned fear memory. The researchers waited until the propranolol in the propranolol group was flushed out of their systems to expose both groups to the tone once more and then recorded their fear responses. The outcome lead to a stunning conclusion, propranolol diminished the fear response in a way that was significantly different than the control group. Researchers concluded that in addition to dulling consideration of emotionally charged memories, propranolol blocked the reconsolidation of the memories. In layman terms, this means that propranolol can change memories that were already formed.
The Narrative Recall Studies (Brunet et al., 2008) used participants with PTSD to see how propranolol would affect their traumatic experiences. They were asked to write up a script of their traumatic experience and then listen to the script; they were then either given propranolol or a placebo. They were invited back a week later to listen to the script once more. As you may have guessed, the propranolol group showed a diminished fear response that—like previous study—suggested that beta-blockers seem to block emotional memory reconsolidation.
In addition to propranolol and other beta-blockers, there is another drug that seems to affect memory consolation and reconsolidation: CI-994. CI-994 is a relatively new drug that was created as an inhibitor for HDAC2—“ a master regulator of the expression of neuroplasticity genes.” (Tsai, 2014). In her article, “Drug Tweaks Epigenome to Erase Fear Memories”, Virginia Hughes writes about Li-Heui Tsai, the neuroscientist who is leading work behind the CI-994 drug. In one study, Tsai demonstrated that administering CI-994 resulted in an unlearning of fear memory in mice 30 days after the fear memory was formed. According to Tsai, it only took one dose and there were zero side effects—as in, other memories were still intact. The fact that the feared memory was unlearned after such a substantial time is incredible because PTSD, especially the severe forms of it, is a lifelong battle. Traditional therapies—such as extinction therapy—only work in recently acquired memories, making it somewhat useless for a large demographic of PTSD sufferers. CI-994, along with the beta-blockers already on the market,has the potential of changing the lives of many people by moving research one step closer to a memory modification super drug.
While is all seems amazing and revolutionary, it is important to step back and consider the ramifications. People who are known as “the Alarmists” would argue that we should never use drugs, or any other method, to alter our memories permanently because they are a core part of who we are. Our true selves cannot be true if our memories are incomplete. Additionally, there is value in bad memories. For example, what if the world forgot what happened during the Nazi regime? Or if we forgot the struggles that plagued the African American community during segregation? We better ourselves and our communities by building upon painful memories to ensure that they never occur again.
On the other hand, people like “the Modifiers” would claim that, as long as it does not harm anyone, it is morally acceptable to alter memories. They claim that the good of the person comes before anything else. For example, victims of violence and abuse may want to forget the traumas they experienced, or soldiers with PTSD may want to forget what they have seen and done. It seems a bit cruel to make them endure such painful memories if there is a way to get rid of them, or even just dull them. Additionally, the true self is constantly evolving. If outside forces such as trauma can modify our true self, then how can we claim that we should not have a drug to act as an outside force modifier? Are our true selves not true if we craft them through choice?
I personally believe in the idea of “treatmentalism”. Essentially, I believe that people should only use memory modification for circumstances that invoke a tremendous amount of trauma that interfere with normal, every day functioning. I would like to emphasize that last point because trauma is subjective, someone going through a divorce may feel as if the world is falling apart. However, with normal therapy and some time, there is a great likelihood of that person coming to terms with the divorce and moving on. Should the person not get over it and resort to destructive behaviors—such as self harm or alcoholism—then I would recommend therapy for those behaviors first, such as inpatient therapy, and then recommend the modifier drug as a last resort.
Alarmist, Modifier, Treatmentalist—what do you label yourself as? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Vukov, J. Enduring Questions and the Ethics of Memory Modification. Powerpoint slides. Retrieved from Presentation_November_29.PDF
Images:
Http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Memory.jpg [Digital image]. (n.d.).
Http://integratedlistening.com/wp-content/uploads//2016/01/460669515.jpg [Digital image]. (n.d.).
