24 ms·

Here is the abstract (all I could find) of this paper: Memories can be unreliable. We created a false memory in mice by optogenetically manipulating memory e

by bcn 13y ago

Here is the abstract (all I could find) of this paper: Memories can be unreliable. We created a false memory in mice by optogenetically manipulating memory engram–bearing cells in the hippocampus. Dentate gyrus (DG) or CA1 neurons activated by exposure to a particular context were labeled with channelrhodopsin-2. These neurons were later optically reactivated during fear conditioning in a different context. The DG experimental group showed increased freezing in the original context, in which a foot shock was never delivered. The recall of this false memory was context-specific, activated similar downstream regions engaged during natural fear memory recall, and was also capable of driving an active fear response. Our data demonstrate that it is possible to generate an internally represented and behaviorally expressed fear memory via artificial means. - from https://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6144/387 https://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6144/387 The Ars article also has a good link to a backgrounder on optogenetics: http://f1000.com/prime/reports/b/3/11/ http://f1000.com/prime/reports/b/3/11/

VladRussian2 13y ago
>increased freezing in the original context, in which a foot shock was never delivered seems like an effective way to train things like correct reaction for the "Attention" command in soldiers, schoolchildren, employees during all-hands,... On the other side, some decades later we will be appalled by the modern practice of electrical shocking of mice the same ways some of us are already appalled by medieval torture.
- etrautmann 13y ago
  These foot shocks are pretty mild. This is a bit of hyperbole...
- ars 13y ago
  Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. A better example might be vivisection - it used to be done without any analgesia at all, for the simple reason that they had none. But they learned a LOT from it. Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. This is the same way - it's the best tool we have. Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. By your standard it is just ok. Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture, be it an interrogated witch, 911 terrorist, Jew in concentration camp being experimented on or a dog being vivisected. > Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. No. The idea became repugnant to some [the most advanced people of the time] and through their effort the analgesics started to be used. In particular, ether was first used for surgery in 1846, while vivisection was still legal for more than half a century after that. Or do you mean UCSF doesn't have analgesics available: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-research-animals-suffer-4065881.php http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-res... > Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. That a convenient lie - alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years. >Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all. False scare, like security vs. liberty. The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Live and let live.
    - aperrien 13y ago
      This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. Which do you value more, animals or humans?
      - VladRussian2 13y ago
        >This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.
sillysaurus 13y ago
Here's the full text PDF: http://freepdfhosting.com/bb20a253a5.pdf http://freepdfhosting.com/bb20a253a5.pdf

by bcn 13y ago

VladRussian2 13y ago

>increased freezing in the original context, in which a foot shock was never delivered seems like an effective way to train things like correct reaction for the "Attention" command in soldiers, schoolchildren, employees during all-hands,... On the other side, some decades later we will be appalled by the modern practice of electrical shocking of mice the same ways some of us are already appalled by medieval torture.

etrautmann 13y ago
These foot shocks are pretty mild. This is a bit of hyperbole...
ars 13y ago
Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. A better example might be vivisection - it used to be done without any analgesia at all, for the simple reason that they had none. But they learned a LOT from it. Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. This is the same way - it's the best tool we have. Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. By your standard it is just ok. Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture, be it an interrogated witch, 911 terrorist, Jew in concentration camp being experimented on or a dog being vivisected. > Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. No. The idea became repugnant to some [the most advanced people of the time] and through their effort the analgesics started to be used. In particular, ether was first used for surgery in 1846, while vivisection was still legal for more than half a century after that. Or do you mean UCSF doesn't have analgesics available: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-research-animals-suffer-4065881.php http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-res... > Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. That a convenient lie - alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years. >Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all. False scare, like security vs. liberty. The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Live and let live.
  - aperrien 13y ago
    This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. Which do you value more, animals or humans?
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.

sillysaurus 13y ago

Here's the full text PDF: http://freepdfhosting.com/bb20a253a5.pdf http://freepdfhosting.com/bb20a253a5.pdf