The neuroscientist working on ‘zapping' away unwanted memories
Think of your happiest memory. A wedding, your child's birth, or maybe just a perfect night out with friends. Sit with it for a moment. Remember the details. What were you wearing? What did it smell like? How did it make you feel?
Now do the opposite. Think of a sad memory—the loss of a loved one, getting laid off, or a painful breakup. Sit with this one too.
Which would you rather keep?
Of course, you want the happy memory, the one that made you feel good and joyful about life. Yet, the painful ones linger for years and sometimes decades, like bruises beneath the surface. If you could choose, would you keep them—or delete them entirely?
If this is all starting to sound like something out of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Inception, you wouldn't be too far off—and Steve Ramirez would agree with you. Ramirez is a neuroscientist at Boston University and National Geographic Explorer whose research occurs on the bleeding edge of memory science. He's perhaps best known for studies he helped conduct that showed that it was possible to implant a false memory in mice. The findings were published in the journal Science in 2013 and the Royal Society in 2014.
His research is built on a central truth: Memory is fickle. It changes and morphs every time we recall it. Ramirez compares it to hitting 'Save As' on a Word document. Everytime we retrieve a memory, we change it slightly. Ramirez is exploring whether we can harness that 'Save As' process—intentionally rewriting our memories instead of letting them change by accident. So far, he's figured out how to do something even more surprising: not destroy a bad memory, but create a new one.
'We know memories are malleable, and susceptible to modification,' says Ramirez. 'Every time they're recalled, they're being saved and edited with bits and pieces. We wanted to see if we could do that in the lab. Because if we could do that directly in the lab and brain, then we can really get a higher resolution snapshot of how memories work when they're being warped or when they're being modified.'
The team's foundational study came in a 2012 paper published in Nature where they identified and activated a cluster of neurons in mice brains that encoded a fear memory—specifically, a mild foot shock. To do so, the researchers genetically engineered the mice so that memory-related neurons become light sensitive. The creatures were then placed into a box and received a foot shock—resulting in the memory of that shock becoming encoded in the light-sensitive brain cells.
The team then surgically implanted a tiny fiber-optic cable into the skull of each mouse that they could use to shine a laser into its brain. When they turned it on, it activated the bad memory on command like flipping a switch.
Next they wanted to see if they could create a false memory. For this, they put a mouse in a safe box and let it explore. The next day, they placed the mouse in a different box, triggered the memory of the safe box by shooting a laser over its brain, and simultaneously gave it a foot shock. When they later returned the mouse in the first box, it froze in fear—even though it never received a shock in that box.
The team had, in effect, implanted a false memory in the mice.
'The key thing with that experiment was that we showed that we could artificially activate a memory while the animal was experiencing something. Later, that new, updated version was the animal's last recorded version of that memory,' he explains. 'The mouse was scared in an environment where, technically, nothing bad happened.'
Between the lasers, false memories, and shocking experiments, you'd be forgiven if you thought this was getting pretty sci-fi. Ramirez embraces the comparison as his work often brushes up against science fiction in big ways.
'I think science fiction and science reality are in lockstep, often influencing each other in surprising and unpredictable ways,' Ramirez says. 'What sci-fi can get 'wrong' sometimes is inevitable, but the work it inspires and the dreams and visions sci-fi can conjure up in people is practically limitless, and I love it for that very reason.'
Still, it can seem scary, especially when you consider the potential applications to humans. But Ramirez says that memory manipulation would take a decidedly less invasive approach for people—no brain lasers required. Instead, if you want to activate a happy memory in another person, all you have to do is ask them about it. (Remember the beginning of the story—or did you forget?)
'We can update a seemingly safe memory into something negative,' he says, referring to the foot shock test. 'But what about the opposite: Can we turn a negative memory into a positive memory?'
Despite the pop-culture comparisons to Inception or Eternal Sunshine, Ramirez's real-world applications are far less cinematic—and arguably more profound. Instead, his work is laying the groundwork for helping people with PTSD process harmful memories, or those with neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's and dementia live longer, better lives.
In a forthcoming paper currently under peer review, his team claims they were able to identify where exactly a memory will form in the brain days before it even happens. It's like being able to predict where lightning is about to strike before the storm even gathers. This might allow future clinicians to anticipate the effects of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and dementia before they occur.
'Imagine being able to make a Google Maps for memory, but with the level of individual brain cells,' he says. 'You could say, 'This is a positive memory in the brain. It's located here in this 3D web of activity. We can zoom into it here and it looks like something is misfiring, and that might be the remnants of some kind of cognitive decline or memory loss, or amnesia, or Alzheimer's.''
We're still a long way away from a Google Maps for memory. However, Ramirez is quick to point out that his field of research is still in its infancy. He puts it this way: the study of neuroscience is roughly 100 years old—whereas physics is more than 2,000 years old. 'Relative to physics, neuroscience is still in its Pythagorean Theorem stage,' he jokes.
There's still a lot we don't know about the brain and, as a result, how memory works. But Ramirez and neuroscientists like him are turning science fiction into science reality, which may allow us to one day edit and manipulate our own experiences. More importantly, their research helps us understand the profound ways that memory shapes us—and how we might begin to shape it right back.
This article is part of Your Memory, Rewired, a National Geographic exploration into the fuzzy, fascinating frontiers of memory science—including advice on how to make your own memory more powerful. Learn more.
The nonprofit National Geographic Society, committed to illuminating and protecting the wonder of our world, funded National Geographic Explorer Steve Ramirez's work. Learn more about the Society's support of Explorers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Forget 'biological age' tests — longevity experts are using an $800 under-the-radar blood test to measure aging in real-time
Doctors and scientists are using a blood plasma test to study longevity. The test measures proteins and can tell you about your organ health. This field of proteomics could one day help detect diseases like cancer before they start. Should you have that second cup of coffee? How about a little wine with dinner? And, is yogurt really your superfood? Scientists are getting closer to offering consumers a blood test that could help people make daily decisions about how to eat, drink, and sleep that are more perfectly tailored to their unique biology. The forthcoming tests could also help shape what are arguably far more important health decisions, assessing whether your brain is aging too fast, if your kidneys are OK, or if that supplement or drug you're taking is actually doing any good. It's called an organ age test, more officially (and scientifically) known as "proteomics" — and it's the next hot "biological age" marker that researchers are arguing could be better than all the rest. "If I could just get one clock right now, I'd want to get that clock, and I'd like to see it clinically available in older adults," cardiologist Eric Topol, author of the recent bestseller "Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity," told Business Insider. Topol said armed with organ age test results, people could become more proactive stewards of their own health, before it's too late. "When we have all these layers of data, it's a whole new day for preventing the disease," Topol said. "You see the relationship with women's hormones. You see the relationship with food and alcohol. You don't ever get that with genes." A test like this isn't available to consumers just yet, but it's already being used by researchers at elite universities and high-end longevity clinics. They hope it can become a tool any doctor could use to assess patient health in the next few years. A startup called Vero, which was spun out of some foundational proteomics research at Stanford University, is hoping to beta test a proteomics product for consumers this year. "Knowing your oldest organ isn't the point; changing the trajectory is," Vero co-founder and CEO Paul Coletta told a crowd gathered at the Near Future Summit in Malibu, California, last month. Coletta told Business Insider Vero's not interested in doing "wealthcare." The company plans to make its test available to consumers for around $200 a pop, at scale. Their draw only requires one vial of blood. The big promise of proteomics is that it could be a more precise real-time tool for tracking important but subtle changes that emerge inside each of us as we age. Genetic testing can measure how our bodies are built, spotting vulnerabilities in a person's DNA that might predispose them to health issues. Standard clinical measurements like a person's weight, blood pressure, or cholesterol readings are a useful proxy for potential health issues. Then there are the increasingly popular "biological age" tests available to consumers at home. Most of those look at "epigenetic changes" — how environmental factors affect our gene expression. Proteomics does something different and new. It measures the product that our bodies make based on all those genetic and environmental inputs: proteins. It offers a live assessment of how your body is running, not just how it's programmed. If validated in the next few years, these tests could become key in early disease detection and prevention. They could help influence all kinds of medical decisions, from big ones like "What drugs should I take?" to little ones like "How does my body respond to caffeine or alcohol?" Some high-end longevity clinics are already forging ahead using proteomics to guide clinical recommendations, albeit cautiously. Dr. Evelyne Bischof, a longevity physician who treats patients worldwide, said she uses proteomic information to guide some of the lifestyle interventions she recommends to her patients. She may suggest a more polyphenol-rich diet to someone who seems to have high inflammation and neuroinflammation based on proteomic test results, or may even suggest they do a little more cognitive training, based on what proteomics says about how their brain is aging. Dr. Andrea Maier, a professor of medicine and functional aging at the National University of Singapore, told BI she uses this measurement all the time in her longevity clinics. For her, it's just a research tool, but if the results of her ongoing studies are decent, she hopes to be able to use it clinically in a few years' time. "We want to know what kind of 'ageotype' a person is, so what type of aging personality are you, not from a mental perspective, but from a physical perspective," Maier said. "It's really discovery at this moment in time, and at the edge of being clinically meaningful." "Once we have that validated tool, we will just add it to our routine testing and we can just tick the box and say, 'I also want to know if this person is a cardiac ager, or a brain ager, or a muscle ager' because now we have a sensitive parameter — protein — which can be added," Maier said. The two big-name proteomics tests are Olink and SOMAscan. For now, their high-end screening costs around $400-$800 per patient. "I'm losing lots of money at the moment because of proteomics for clinical research!" Maier said. Top aging researchers at Stanford and Harvard are pushing the field forward, racing to publish more novel insights about the human proteome. The latest findings from Harvard aging researcher Vadim Gladyshev's lab, published earlier this year, suggest that as we age, each person may even stand to benefit from a slightly different antiaging grocery list. To research this idea, Gladyshev looked at proteins in the blood of more than 50,000 people in the UK, all participants in the UK Biobank who are being regularly tested and studied to learn more about their long-term health. He tracked their daily habits and self-reported routines like diet, occupation, and prescriptions, comparing those details to how each patient's organs were aging. He discovered some surprising connections. Yogurt eating, generally speaking, tended to be associated with better intestinal aging but had relatively no benefit to the arteries. White wine drinking, on the other hand, seemed to potentially confer some small benefit to the arteries while wreaking havoc on the gut. "The main point is that people age in different ways in different organs, and therefore we need to find personalized interventions that would fit that particular person," Gladyshev told BI. "Through measuring proteins, you assess the age of different organs and you say, 'OK, this person is old in this artery.'" For now, there's too much noise in the data to do more. Dr. Pal Pacher, a senior investigator at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism who studies organ aging and injuries, told BI that proteomics is simply not ready for clinical use yet. There's just too much noise in the data. But he imagines a future where a more sophisticated protein clock could help link up which people may be most vulnerable to diseases like early cancer, kidney disease, and more. (A California-based proteomics company called Seer announced last weekend that it is partnering with Korea University to study whether proteomics can help more quickly diagnose cancer in young people in their 20s and 30s.) "How beautiful could it be in the future?" Maier said. "Instead of three hours of clinical investigation, I would have a tool which guides me much, much better, with more validity towards interventions." Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
A hunt for ghostly particles found strange signals coming from Antarctic ice. Scientists are still trying to explain them
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. Scientists are trying to solve a decade-long mystery by determining the identity of anomalous signals detected from below ice in Antarctica. The strange radio waves emerged during a search for another unusual phenomenon: high-energy cosmic particles known as neutrinos. Arriving at Earth from the far reaches of the cosmos, neutrinos are often called 'ghostly' because they are extremely volatile, or vaporous, and can go through any kind of matter without changing. Over the past decade, researchers have conducted multiple experiments using vast expanses of water and ice that are designed to search for neutrinos, which could shed light on mysterious cosmic rays, the most highly energetic particles in the universe. One of these projects was NASA's Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna, or ANITA, experiment, which flew balloons carrying instruments above Antarctica between 2006 and 2016. It was during this hunt that ANITA picked up anomalous radio waves that didn't seem to be neutrinos. The signals came from below the horizon, suggesting they had passed through thousands of miles of rock before reaching the detector. But the radio waves should have been absorbed by the rock. The ANITA team believed these anomalous signals could not be explained by the current understanding of particle physics. Follow-up observations and analyses with other instruments, including one recently conducted by the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina, have not been able to find the same signals. The results of the Pierre Auger Collaboration were published in the journal Physical Review Letters in March. The origin of the anomalous signals remains unclear, said study coauthor Stephanie Wissel, associate professor of physics, astronomy and astrophysics at the Pennsylvania State University. 'Our new study indicates that such (signals) have not been seen by an experiment … like the Pierre Auger Observatory,' Wissel said. 'So, it does not indicate that there is new physics, but rather more information to add to the story.' Larger, more sensitive detectors may be able to solve the mystery, or ultimately prove whether the anomalous signals were a fluke, while continuing the search for enigmatic neutrinos and their sources, scientists say. Detecting neutrinos on Earth allows researchers to trace them back to their sources, which scientists believe are primarily cosmic rays that strike our planet's atmosphere. The most highly energetic particles in the universe, cosmic rays are made up mostly of protons or atomic nuclei, and they are unleashed across the universe because whatever produces them is such a powerful particle accelerator that it dwarfs the capabilities of the Large Hadron Collider. Neutrinos could help astronomers better understand cosmic rays and what launches them across the cosmos. But neutrinos are difficult to find because they have almost no mass and can pass through the most extreme environments, like stars and entire galaxies, unchanged. They do, however, interact with water and ice. ANITA was designed to search for the highest energy neutrinos in the universe, at higher energies than have yet been detected, said Justin Vandenbroucke, an associate professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The experiment's radio antennae search for a short pulse of radio waves produced when a neutrino collides with an atom in the Antarctic ice, leading to a shower of lower-energy particles, he said. During its flights, ANITA found high-energy fountains of particles coming from the ice, a kind of upside-down shower of cosmic rays. The detector is also sensitive to ultrahigh energy cosmic rays that rain down on Earth and create a radio burst that acts like a flashlight beam of radio waves. When ANITA watches a cosmic ray, the flashlight beam is really a burst of radio waves one-billionth of a second long that can be mapped like a wave to show how it reflects off the ice. Twice in their data from ANITA flights, the experiment's original team spotted signals coming up through the ice at a much sharper angle than ever predicted by any models, making it impossible to trace the signals to their original sources. 'The radio waves that we detected nearly a decade ago were at really steep angles, like 30 degrees below the surface of the ice,' Wissel said. Neutrinos can travel through a lot of matter, but not all the way through the Earth, Vandenbroucke said. 'They are expected to arrive from slightly below the horizon, where there is not much Earth for them to be absorbed,' he wrote in an email. 'The ANITA anomalous events are intriguing because they appear to come from well below the horizon, so the neutrinos would have to travel through much of the Earth. This is not possible according to the Standard Model of particle physics.' The Pierre Auger Collaboration, which includes hundreds of scientists around the world, analyzed more than a decade's worth of data to try to understand the anomalous signals detected by ANITA. The team also used their observatory to try to find the same signals. The Auger Observatory is a hybrid detector that uses two methods to find and study cosmic rays. One method relies on finding high-energy particles as they interact with water in tanks on Earth's surface, and the other tracks potential interactions with ultraviolet light high in our planet's atmosphere. 'The Auger Observatory uses a very different technique to observe ultrahigh energy cosmic ray air showers, using the secondary glow of charged particles as they traverse the atmosphere to determine the direction of the cosmic ray that initiated it,' said Peter Gorham, a professor of physics at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. 'By using computer simulations of what such a shower of particles would look like if it had behaved like the ANITA anomalous events, they are able to generate a kind of template for similar events and then search their data to see if anything like that appears.' Gorham, who was not involved with the new research, designed the ANITA experiment and has conducted other research to understand more about the anomalous signals. While the Auger Observatory was designed to measure downward-going particle showers produced in the atmosphere by ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, the team redesigned their data analysis to search for upward-going air showers, Vandenbroucke said. Vandenbroucke did not work on the new study, but he peer-reviewed it prior to publication. 'Auger has an enormous collecting area for such events, larger than ANITA,' he said. 'If the ANITA anomalous events are produced by any particle traveling through the Earth and then producing upward-going showers, then Auger should have detected many of them, and it did not.' A separate follow-up study using the IceCube Experiment, which has sensors embedded deep in the Antarctic ice, also searched for the anomalous signals. 'Because IceCube is very sensitive, if the ANITA anomalous events were neutrinos then we would have detected them,' wrote Vandenbroucke, who served as colead of the IceCube Neutrino Sources working group between 2019 and 2022. 'It's an interesting problem because we still don't actually have an explanation for what those anomalies are, but what we do know is that they're most likely not representing neutrinos,' Wissel said. Oddly enough, a different kind of neutrino, called a tau neutrino, is one hypothesis that some scientists have put forth as the cause of the anomalous signals. Tau neutrinos can regenerate. When they decay at high energies, they produce another tau neutrino, as well as a particle called a tau lepton — similar to an electron, but much heavier. But what makes the tau neutrino scenario very unlikely is the steepness of the angle connected to the signal, Wissel said. 'You expect all these tau neutrinos to be very, very close to the horizon, like maybe one to five degrees below the horizon,' Wissel said. 'These are 30 degrees below the horizon. There's just too much material. They really would actually lose quite a bit of energy and not be detectable.' At the end of the day, Gorham and the other scientists have no idea what the origin of the anomalous ANITA events are. So far, no interpretations match up with the signals, which is what keeps drawing scientists back to try to solve the mystery. The answer may be in sight, however. Wissel is also working on a new detector, the Payload for Ultra-High Energy Observations or PUEO, that will fly over Antarctica for a month beginning in December. Larger and 10 times more sensitive than ANITA, PUEO could reveal more information on what is causing the anomalous signals detected by ANITA, Wissel said. 'Right now, it's one of these long-standing mysteries,' Wissel said. 'I'm excited that when we fly PUEO, we'll have better sensitivity. In principle, we should be able to better understand these anomalies which will go a long way to understanding our backgrounds and ultimately detecting neutrinos in the future.' Gorham said that PUEO, an acronym that references the Hawaiian owl, should have the sensitivity to capture many anomalous signals and help scientists find an answer. 'Sometimes you just have to go back to the drawing board and really figure out what these things are,' Wissel said. 'The most likely scenario is that it's some mundane physics that can be explained, but we're sort of knocking on all the doors to try to figure out what those are.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Plants emit insect-repelling chemical that could secretly be poisoning our air
In the 2008 film 'The Happening', plants turned against humans in an eerie twist of nature, releasing invisible neurotoxins that drove people to their deaths. It was pure sci-fi horror, but the idea that plants can chemically shape the world around them isn't fiction. In fact, the air we breathe carries traces of a quieter kind of warfare — not against people, but pests. Scientists at Michigan State University have cracked a 40-year mystery around isoprene, a natural chemical that some plants emit to repel hungry insects. But there's a twist: while it defends the plant, it could be polluting the air. Isoprene is a colorless, volatile hydrocarbon, a simple organic compound made up of five carbon atoms and eight hydrogen atoms (C₅H₈). It's naturally released by certain plants, especially in hot weather, and is one of the most abundant hydrocarbons emitted into the atmosphere, second only to methane. Unlike the fragrant terpenes you'd smell in pine forests or poplar groves, isoprene is odorless yet highly reactive. Once released, it interacts with sunlight and nitrogen oxides from vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, contributing to the formation of ozone, aerosols, and other pollutants that degrade air quality. 'Everyone understands what it smells like when you walk through a pine forest,' Sharkey said. 'In an oak grove, which has more hydrocarbons because it makes so much isoprene, you just don't notice it.' Until now, scientists weren't entirely sure why some plants go to the trouble of producing isoprene at all, especially since it doesn't seem to help them grow. But the new research suggests the answer lies in defense, not just against heat stress, but against hungry insects. In controlled greenhouse experiments, MSU researchers grew two types of tobacco plants — one genetically modified to emit isoprene, the other left unchanged. When whiteflies invaded, they swarmed the non-emitting plants while avoiding the isoprene producers altogether. Further tests using hornworms confirmed the pattern. Worms that fed on isoprene-rich leaves grew smaller and weaker than those that didn't. But it wasn't the isoprene itself that harmed them. Instead, the chemical triggered a spike in jasmonic acid, a defense hormone that disrupts an insect's ability to digest protein. 'The defense was not the isoprene itself, but the consequence of what isoprene did to the plant,' Sharkey said. Another surprise came from soybeans. Long believed to have lost the ability to make isoprene through evolution, soybeans were found to release it in small bursts when their leaves were damaged. The discovery suggests they still carry the gene to produce isoprene and switch it only under stress. Researchers say this discovery could change the way we protect crops. But that upside comes with a downside. Isoprene is a hydrocarbon that can worsen air pollution, especially in areas where air quality is already poor. If more crops are genetically modified to emit isoprene, it could further harm the atmosphere. The findings also raise concerns about how soybeans might be contributing to air pollution. 'That's one of the questions that's most important to come out of this research,' Sharkey said. 'Should we add isoprene to crop plants so that they're protected against insects and put up with their effect on the ozone? Or should we genetically engineer plants to turn off the isoprene synthase as much as we can to improve the atmosphere?' The findings come from two new studies published in Science Advances and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
