Earlier this last year, Bédécarrats and his colleagues’ published study show that injecting RNA (like DNA, but less stable) between sea slugs (Aplysia) that changed neuronal responses. The response was originally only seen in the donor after training. This change in cellular response (more sensitive to stimulation) is a form of cellular memory, but media really got excited about this memory transfer and it blew up. Titles like “Scientists Transferred Memories from One Snail to Another. Someday, They Could Do the Same in Humans” were floating around. Unfortunately, the distinction between different types of memory is not well known outside specific science communities, and this study received a lot of attention for its incorrect association with explicit memory. (Explicit memory is basically verbal memory, while the original paper was looking at something much simpler. The two forms of memory are related as cellular memory is believed to be a mechanism for explicit memory.)
While concerns were raised by the science community about the misinterpretation, the head of the lab (Dr. Glanzman) seemed to encourage this misconception being quoted to say that one day he hopes that “RNA can be used to awaken and restore memories that have gone dormant in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.” Sometimes, more press can lead to more funding, which is always great in this hypercompetitive environment.
But misrepresenting the science is bad. Science is a search of truth to discover and understand our universe. By exaggerating the findings and making grandiose claims for its implications to the general audience without a full explanation behind the reasons for its associations, the community loses trust as the forms of communication is perceived to become more manipulative and potentially political.
So I’m really irritated with how this finding made a splash.
Originally posted on Instagram January 5, 2019
Categories:
Tags:
No Responses