10/17/2007
Mushrooms, Memory and Consciousness
Last week I was reading an article by Christof Koch and Susan Greenfield in the October issue of Scientific American titled “How Does Consciousness Happen?” The article mentioned that the compound psilocybin is a hallucinogen that is present in mushrooms. I was reminded of an incident I wrote about in an earlier column (8/8/2007). The incident involved a squirrel eating a mushroom stalk as I watched from our breakfast room window. After eating the mushroom stalk, the squirrel seemed to go berserk, jumping and flipping in the air and rolling around on the ground in a frenzy. Could it have been due to psilocybin?
Well, wouldn’t you know that the day after I read the Scientific American article my wife and I were having lunch in the breakfast room and watched as a squirrel approached. Was this the same squirrel? It came up to a spot either very close to or identical to the spot where the mushroom had been a couple of months ago. Suddenly, the squirrel began digging furiously in that spot; then it rolled over on its back, wriggling around for perhaps 10 seconds much as the squirrel that ate the mushroom. It then righted itself and ran off in a normal squirrelly fashion. Could this squirrel have gotten a slight high from psilocybin hallucinogen left over from the mushroom? A few minutes later, we noted a chipmunk appear and briefly dig in the same spot as the squirrel. However, the chipmunk quickly departed without exhibiting any unusual behavior.
I don’t expect that I’ll ever know the explanation for our strangely behaving squirrel(s). I also doubt that I’ll be around to hear or read of the definitive answer to the question posed in the title of the Scientific American article – how does consciousness happen? Koch, at the California Institute of Technology, and Greenfield, at the University of Oxford in England, are eminent neuroscientists with opposing views on the consciousness question. In 2006 at Oxford they engaged in a spirited debate, which continues in a friendly but adversarial manner. In the article, each expresses his or her view based on a wealth of neuroscientific, clinical and psychological data.
In a nutshell, Koch proposes that each conscious experience causes a unique collection or coalition of neurons to fire in a specific manner. For example, Koch would say, if I understand him correctly, that when I meet a new individual a specific group or coalition of neurons will fire in a distinct pattern that will be retained in my memory. When I see that person again, that same coalition of neurons will fire in the same pattern. Should another friend appear on the scene, another coalition of neurons will replace the first set of neurons and my consciousness of the first friend will dissolve.
Greenfield, on the other hand, considers that for any conscious experience, neurons across the brain fire in synchronization, forming coordinated assemblies of neurons that disband. According to Greenfield, there is no magical quality in a given set of neurons but it’s the process in the brain that counts when it comes to consciousness. She maintains that Koch is studying the content of consciousness, not consciousness itself. She also insists that it’s necessary to determine the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness to know what consciousness really involves. To tell the truth, I found it difficult to follow and understand Greenfield’ arguments.
One argument that Koch uses to bolster his thesis is based on results on mice given hallucinogens, including psilocybin. Workers have found that the hallucinogen acts on a certain molecule known as a serotonin receptor in a certain set of neurons in a specific part of the brain. Koch says that this shows the hallucinogens don’t act by “messing up” the brain’s circuitry but do their dirty work by acting on specific neurons.
Thinking it might be easier for me to understand memory than to understand consciousness, I turned to an article by Sophie Rovner in Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) titled “Hold That Thought”. This article deals with progress in the field of the chemistry involved in the storage of memory in the brain. A companion article by Rovner entitled “Molecules for Memory” deals with progress and ethical issues involved in the quest for drugs to enhance memory. Here, the Holy Grail would be to find a drug that would reverse or prevent Alzheimer’s.
Silly me. Understanding the chemistry of memory is no easier than understanding consciousness. The hundred billion neurons in the brain are each connected to thousands of other neurons via trillions of connections, or synapses. It is the “strength” of these synapses that determines whether a memory is retained for a lifetime or only a few minutes. But what determines the strength of a synapse? The world of a synapse is replete with interactions of various proteins, ion channels that allow passage of calcium, magnesium, sodium and other ions, glutamate molecules released at synapses and loads of other chemicals and interactions. It boggles my feeble brain. Thousands of labs are working on trying to pin down the key fundamental biochemical change that really determines the strength of a synapse.
In spite of the complexity and unsolved problems that remain, significant progress has been made. One example is that in lab animals, workers can actually map the sites in the animal’s cortex where specific memories are stored. Another example is the finding that the level of a certain so-called transcription factor known as CREB is a factor in determining the suitability for a given neuron to store a memory. In the field of improving memory, many companies have promising drugs in the pipeline. Unfortunately, drugs to treat Alzheimer’s are only moderately effective to date.
Aside from the scientific aspects of memory and memory enhancing drugs, Rovner points out another impediment to the development and marketing of such drugs. This concerns the question as to what medical conditions are appropriate for these drugs? Specifically, we hear more and more in the media these days about “mild cognitive impairment”, a condition that is not as serious as Alzheimer’s but which sometimes is a precursor to Alzheimer’s. If a drug is found to prevent or reverse Alzheimer’s, should it be used to treat mild cognitive impairment? If yes, what about “age-associated memory impairment”? This is a condition increasingly shared by large numbers of people over 50-55 as they age. As I approach my 80th birthday, I suspect most of my vintage are in this category. I certainly am. If a drug emerges, should we seniors all be taking it? Should Medicare pay for it?
Now we’re into really complex and politically charged issues. I think I’ll go back to writing about squirrels and mushrooms.
Allen F. Bortrum
|