What does it mean ‘to remember’ and what do cells know?

Remembering takes lots of forms .

I haven’t posted on the site for some time. The consortium has gotten too serious (stiff) so the daffy ducks in my little fringe group are tolerated but not encouraged to publish. We had a devil of a time choosing a title for our thoughts and comments in response to an article on cancer. One of my buddies had suggested calling this posting, ‘we reject new knowledge that might change us’. That sounds alright to me but the vote was to reject that title.

The inspiration for the posting was an article entitled ‘In Body’s Shield Against Cancer, a Culprit in Aging (N.Y. Times Science Section of November 22, 2011, written by Nicholas Wade). It is a terrific article that is filled with wonderful ideas about cellular knowledge (our take) and how it is a dominant player in many aspects of our lives. Summarizing the article would not do it justice. We encourage you to read it.

Knowledge, information, is everywhere, but all too often what we already know acts to deny our ability to understand what is new. Sometimes knowledge seems familiar and we don’t know why. Other times we invent what something means assuming we know what we are doing. In our science laboratories of the real, empirical, imagined and nonsensical almost anything is possible.

We dunderheads are pleased to play in all kinds of settings that are beyond our capabilities. Of late we are fascinated by the explosion of findings and ideas from the world of genetics and proteomics. We have learned to read that complex genetics literature with some understanding, mixed in with our version of the implications for all sorts of life processes. Needless to say the public has had a steady diet of reports about the exciting potential of applying genetics to what ails us. Unfortunately the hype has been louder than the success stories of applied genetics in medicine. Is it all about successfully transferring new biological knowledge to replace defective biological information?

All kinds of knowledge are stored in cells. We have just learned that old blood is not as good as new blood in stem cell research. Stem cells from adult mature tissue even when driven back to their cellular beginnings, is less useful than the real stuff, embryonic stem cells. We know that some cells stick around in our bodies long after their ability to divide. In fact if you purge the body of senescent cells then remaining tissues are more youthful and full of pep (at least in mice). Cells throughout our body age along with our mental experience of aging and that is not just our imagination. Our memory as coded in our heads, cellular knowledge, decay of vigorous knowledge filled cells in our liver, spleen, toenails, and penis over time all lose potency is serious business especially since we remember with glee when our erections could last all night.

What have cells forgotten and can they be revived? Can cells that have lost their way and no longer function properly be replaced? Can we introduce updated fresh knowledge into cells that have forgotten what they once knew when they functioned properly? But we know that has been a real challenge for those involved in gene therapy, in transplant medicine. Transplantation of ‘knowledge’ is often stymied by rejection of new cells (that is a form of ‘unfamiliar knowledge’) which is not very different form our brains rejecting new knowledge to replace nonsense.

When we last talked about some of these issues several of us focused on the parallels between rejecting new biological knowledge (in transplants or gene therapies) and the difficulties in promoting change in who we are and what we are capable of (knowledge based on our past experience and genetic heritage). Altering how we function on the basis of new knowledge (learning) is almost as difficult as a bone marrow transplant. The status quo seems to be the preferred state of our bodies, which includes our minds. This story line has gotten us to seriously look at ways for making knowledge transplants more effective. Even if this ends up being nothing more than a mind game it will at least have been a source of fun. If we come up with anything of value we will post it. Oh, by the way, we are starting with science that has proven to be of some value like the use of: knowledge mapping; task analysis; well designed practice (a fundamental element used in the development of expertise); and ……not now later.