!! spellx done
6  Don't Scrap Education Yet
   The Washington Post, August 28, 1966

     There are a Lot of Loopholes in the Idea of
     Transplanting Memory by Means of RNA

     For some time, molecular biologists have been glancing sidewise
at the human brain.  They usually decide that its problems are still
too complex to warrant a frontal attack with existing information
and concepts.  In the main, I have to agree with this and feel we
must do much more drudge work in, for example, analyzing the
composition of brain proteins before we can make exciting discoveries.

     Some more adventurous souls have, however, attempted a grand
leap and thus started one of the more confused controversies in
recent scientific work.  Without scientific corroboration or 
resolution of the issues, wide public interest has been attracted to
"memory RNA," the proposition that memory is associated with changes
in the composition of RNA molecules in the brain.  In particular, the
claim is that the memories of one animal (a flatworm or mouse) could
be acquired by a second through the injection of RNA from the first.

     RNA stands for ribonucleic acid as distinguished from DNA,
deoxyribonucleic acid.  It would be well to think of RNA, DNA and
their third partner, protein, simply as proper names for the three
fundamentally important substances of living cells.

     Preferring a more systematic approach to brain mechanisms, I have
had no personal experience with chemical memory substances.  On more
general theoretical grounds, however, the idea of memory RNA has
puzzled me.  Nothing in our firm knowledge of RNA biochemistry
supports any detailed mechanism for it to function as a memory
substance.

     According to present knowledge, RNA molecules are faithful copies
of a DNA blueprint.  We would have to invent new mechanisms for the
nerve cell to reimprint its own RNA and then read it out again.

     Speculations like these might be useful guides to the choice of
problems, but only experiment can answer questions about nature.  Now
we have a remarkable communique published in the journal Science
quoting only negative results from experiments in several laboratories
in their search for a memory substance.

     Besides the fact of noncorroboration, we have the interesting
problem of how and why the first experiments went wrong.  Learning
can only be tested by watching animals' behavior.  And behavior is
notoriously complex, alterable by the most subtle influences, such
as could have no effect on, say, the color of the solution in a test
tube.

     In fact, with rare and gratifying exceptions, controversies and
false starts have been the general rule in experimental psychiatry,
including the study of such crucial problems as the causes and
treatment of schizophrenia.  There are fundamental difficulties of
experimental design which are widely known but insufficiently
appreciated.

     Prof. R. Rosenthal, Harvard psychologist, has specialized in
the study of "experimenter-induced behavior" and shown many
examples where the experimenter's personal expectations influenced
the behavior of animal or human subjects, quite apart from the
actual effect of the treatments.  Just what nuances of handling
or speech caused this is not always obvious.  Most experiments
on memory RNA can be faulted on this ground: they were not "double
blind." A double blind experiment is one where one person makes up
the experimental solutions and codes them.  He should have no further
contact with the animals; others must treat and test them.  Thus
no one who handles any animal may know which treatment was used.

     Only when the experiment is completed are the codes unsealed.
In practice, it is sometimes difficult to do a rigorous double 
blind and judgment must be correspondingly cautious.  For example,
the injections might have side effects on the animal, giving cues
to the supposedly "blind" testers.  In the course of an exciting
exploration, it is humanly impossible not to speculate about which
animals are which.

     There are so many subtleties that it is usually impossible to
judge only from the published reports just how rigorously they were
done in the laboratory.  The historic batting average of the
scientist is what his colleagues may rely on.  This must leave the
layman even more baffled, since public visibility is not always
correlated with the dispassionate objectivity of a given scientist.

     These criticisms may well make no difference to the public's
impressions about memory RNA.  We would all like to imagine such a
substance and reality will only slowly dampen such hopes.  But what
are some more plausible expectations?

     RNA is a vital constituent of nerve cells and, memory RNA or not,
the more we learn of the triad of DNA-RNA-protein, the more we will
learn about memory.  We should also be hearing more about specific
depressants and stimulants of memory function.  Indeed, many familiar
drugs probably already have important effects still not thoroughly
explored.  Nor should we slight what could be learned about suggestion
and other psychological influences as factors in actual learning and
educational experience.

     Solid work in this field depends on an immense range of basic
science, much seemingly irrelevant to human memory.  The mathematical
statistics of the rubber band, for example, are extremely pertinent
to the chemical structure of RNA.

     Undue pressure for prompt applications could erode not only the
foundation of needed facts but the sobriety needed for turning
speculation into sound policy.  A more goal-oriented community of
technicians might have leaped too soon at making a national goal of
replacing education by a royal banquet of RNA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------