Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MIT Finds Cure For Fear

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:43 AM
from the fear-itself dept.
Doom con runs away writes "MIT biochemists have identified a molecular mechanism behind fear, and successfully cured it in mice, according to an article in the journal Nature Neuroscience. They did this by inhibiting a kinase, an enzyme that change proteins, called Cdk5, which facilitates the extinction of fear learned in a particular context."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2007, @11:44AM (#19877629)
    Because I saw some MIT guys talking to GIRLS!
    • by MadMidnightBomber (894759) on Monday July 16 2007, @01:58PM (#19879535)
      Please don't use terms without explaining them! For the benefit of other slashdotters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl [wikipedia.org]
      • Bzzt! Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

        by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Monday July 16 2007, @12:27PM (#19878329) Journal
        The first post is more correct, as the drug might actually apply in a situation involving girls. The drug treats learned fear, not the innate fear of combat. It will be used to help control post traumatic stress disorder. Arguably, fear of women is a learned fear similar to PTSD.
        • Re:Bzzt! Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DakotaSmith (937647) on Monday July 16 2007, @01:05PM (#19878841) Homepage

          What is "innate fear"? I would suggest that in fact, no such thing exists. Instead, virtually all fear is learned. Even the amorphous entity called "fear of the unknown" is simply a result of having spent time on Planet Earth and correctly learned that the unknown can kill you.

          I make this claim based on my having raised two daughters. As infants and toddlers, they have no fear whatsoever: just endless simian curiosity. This is why parents have to child-proof the house, since no 18-month old yet has a fear of electrical outlets nor running ovens. These are things that a child must be taught to fear.

          Similarly, now that they're teenagers, they have to be taught to fear things that are inherently unsafe -- in some ways, it's worse now than it was when they were toddlers. As an experienced adult, I know that hanging out at the mall with no purpose other than to be with your teenaged friends is an inherently dangerous idea ...

          (In any group of teenagers, take the IQ of the smartest one and divide by the number of teenagers present, and you'll have a rough idea of the collective intelligence of the group; divide this number by five, and you get a rough idea of the collective judgement).

          ... but my daughters think of it as fun. Only experience will teach them differently, just as it taught me.

          Similarly, one has to be taught to fear certain aspects of combat: if you've never been exposed to it, how would you have any reaction to it at all, other than as a concept? I don't actually fear combat, and at 42, I should have such a fear if it was innate. I have a learned fear of death and I associate combat with mortality, so I know conceptually that combat should be avoided if possible. However, I have no real fear of it except as a concept because I've never personally experienced it.

          I suspect that once this drug hits the market, we're going to discover clinically what I just suggested: that almost all fear is learned, consequently this drug will be used (and abused) to remove fears ranging from shellshock (I refuse to water the concept down by calling it PTSD) to fear of pregnancy or STDs from unprotected sex.

          What this drug will probably be useless for is chronic anxiety due to brain chemistry. I suffer from this to varying degrees myself and I'm entirely aware that it's irrational and beyond my conscious control no matter how hard I try and relax. Instead, I take a medication intended to correct my brain's chemical imbalance. This drug will likely be useless to me but will find its way to the black market in short order for those who want to take tests without being nervous or engage in dangerous behaviour, both of which are learned fears.

          • Re:Bzzt! Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by joshv (13017) on Monday July 16 2007, @01:14PM (#19878933)
            Bologna. Children fear heights from a very early age. Depending on temperament, they also fear strangers, from a very early age. These are not learned fears. They are innate.

            I have an innate fear of combat and confrontation. This is an innate response. I've been in one fight in my entire life, and I suffered no physical harm as a result. I have no learned aversion to fighting or confrontation. But put me in a situation where some big dude is threatening to hurt me and you will get an immediate flight or fight response. Put me in a combat arena where people are shooting at me and bombs are going off, damn straight I am going to be scared, not because my higher reasoning capacities have inferred that being in this environment could result in my death - but because millions of years of evolution have evolved a fight or flight response that tends to result in higher survival rates among those who don't ignore it.
            • by Banner (17158) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:37PM (#19881943) Journal
              Actually no, children do not fear heights. They will crawl right out a window or over a cliff. Happens with windows all the time in big cities.
              • Re:Bzzt! Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

                by Gulthek (12570) on Monday July 16 2007, @03:15PM (#19880381) Homepage Journal
                Well, we get into a complex area, here -- one that this drug will no doubt make much clearer as it becomes clinically available.

                I agree that some children fear heights. Neither of mine did, however.


                That depends on the age of the children. Infants (6-18 months) will gleefully crawl off of heights not because they aren't afraid, but because their underdeveloped eyes and visual reasoning can't see the depth of the fall. After that, if you have a kid who dives off of heights you should feel proud, scared, and may want to consider gymnastics classes so they'll at least know how to fall correctly. :-)
          • Re:Bzzt! Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Hijacked Public (999535) * on Monday July 16 2007, @01:45PM (#19879397)

            Similarly, one has to be taught to fear certain aspects of combat
            I'm not sure about that. When I was in Somalia (Marines) there were people who, on patrols, became nearly paralyzed with fear at the sound of distant gunfire without ever having seen the result themselves. And then there were people who, while we were taking direct fire and after having seen those beside them take hits, never raised their voice when they spoke to me.

            Some dangerous things are kind of nebulous. Electricty, heat, germs. It took mankind a good long while to trace illness to invisible bugs, so it doesn't suprise me that the concept of them being dangerous would be difficult to develop in the mind of a child.

            But associating loud noises with a negative result is more tangible. I'd think that while it might not be entirely innate, it is probably learned early enough in life by a wide enough variety of people to be nearly inescapable.
          • Re:Bzzt! Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by jc42 (318812) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:51PM (#19881431) Homepage Journal
            What is "innate fear"? I would suggest that in fact, no such thing exists. Instead, virtually all fear is learned.

            To remove the emotion-laden human element, I'd mention that anyone who had kittens and puppies in their house will immediately think of examples of innate fear.

            When kittens are first introduced to dogs of any sort, they almost always go instantly into a fear response. They arch their back, their back fur stand up, they hiss, and they attack the dog with their claws. They don't show this reaction to humans, or to much of anything else; it's a dog-specific instinctive response that happens at the first encounter with a dog.

            Puppies, on the other hand, usually react to cats with curiosity, as they react to just about everything. When the cat attacks, puppies are surprised and don't quite know how to handle it. ("Why do they hate me?" comes to mind. ;-) Dogs have to learn about cats; cats don't have to learn about dogs because they have hard-wired reactions to things that smell "doggy".

            Humans do differ from most other mammals in having much weaker instincts, and depend on learning for most of their knowledge. This is part of what has made us the dominant creature on the planet. But it's silly to claim that humans don't have any innate responses. If that were true, we couldn't ever learn anything, because learning is a behavior, and some part of it must be innate. Computer people refer to this as a "bootstrap problem". You have to have some innate behavior, else you can't ever have any behavior.

            Others have mentioned a number of innate human behaviors (other than learning about their environment), so I won't bother.

              • by NeilTheStupidHead (963719) on Monday July 16 2007, @02:13PM (#19879695) Journal

                To be honest, if I ever had to go into combat, I'd be begging for this stuff. If it works like I suspect it would, you'd avoid a lot of cases of shellshock that way.
                Okay, I'll be behind you, drug free, retaining the fear-instilled good sense to duck.
                • by Hatta (162192) on Monday July 16 2007, @07:45PM (#19882833) Journal

                  To be honest, if I ever had to go into combat, I'd be begging for this stuff. If it works like I suspect it would, you'd avoid a lot of cases of shellshock that way.

                  Okay, I'll be behind you, drug free, retaining the fear-instilled good sense to duck.


                  And I'll be in Canada, high as a kite.
        • by kalirion (728907) on Monday July 16 2007, @02:11PM (#19879685)
          Arguably, fear of women is a learned fear similar to PTSD

          Just similar? Say that next time your crush dumps you in front of the yearbook committee cameras!
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday July 16 2007, @11:45AM (#19877641)
    President Bush introduced a bill this week to eliminate all research funding at MIT.
  • by sqlguy33 (898340) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:46AM (#19877653)
    It is also called Liquid Courage. Drinking enough alcohol leaves me with no fear as well...
  • How long until (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anarke_Incarnate (733529) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:47AM (#19877667)
    this finds its way into MREs given to soldiers?
    • Bad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Valdrax (32670) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:45PM (#19878577)
      My first knee-jerk response was that this would be combined with propranolol, the drug that suppresses traumatic memories which is intended to stop PTSD but could instead be abused to prevent guilt over atrocities.

      My second thought was of how amazingly boneheaded of an idea administering an anti-fear drug would be in a war zone -- especially for US soldiers carrying an amazingly expensive array of military gear and having had expensive combat training. Soldiers need fear as a survival mechanism. Without it, they'd do amazingly stupid and suicidal things.

      You'd use a drug like this if your army were cannon fodder with poor supplies and training. I could see a use for this for suicide bombers or *maybe* for overrunning positions defended by few soldiers, but that's it.
  • uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leeharris100 (890639) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:47AM (#19877671)
    Why would you want to cure fear? Fear keeps me from giving in to a friend's bet and swallowing a live hamster. But seriously, unless you could target certain fears to help people with crippling phobias, this seems dangerous.
    • Re:uh oh... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:54AM (#19877811) Homepage Journal
      You got it. Fear is a good thing. It keeps you from getting killed. Like so many things this could be abused or used to treat real afflictions.
    • Re:uh oh... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dotpavan (829804) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:56AM (#19877831) Homepage
      yes, isnt fear supposed to be an in-built mechanism to prevent us from putting ourselves in dangerous situations (in which others have suffered bad consequences), just like comedy tells us that everything is OK with a false alarm like situation [bbc.co.uk] ["So what I'm arguing is, laughter is nature's false alarm. Why is this useful from an evolutionary standpoint? So what you are doing with this rhythmic stocatto sound of laughter is informing your kin who share your genes, don't waste your precious resources rushing to this person's aid, it's a false alarm everything is OK. OK, so it's nature's OK signal."]
      • Re:uh oh... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Red Flayer (890720) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:00PM (#19877887) Journal

        Why, it'd be great for the military and terrorists.
        sure about that. Fear is a useful biological mechanism, I would expect that soldiers without fear would not be, on the whole, as good as soldiers without it. A healthy dose of caution (based on fear) will save lives -- and for the US at least, minimization of loss of soldiers' lives is a prime determinant of strategy. A lack of fear can lead to foolhardiness, which can endanger not only the fearless soldier, but those around him.

        Terrorists, OTOH, I have no idea. I would imagine the smaller side of any asymmetric war would benefit from fearlessness. Suicide bombers? Definitely. But not all terrorists are suicide bombers -- so would fearlessness benefit, or harm, a terrorist who plants bombs covertly? I'd guess it would limit their effectiveness, since they'd be more likely to take inapproprate risks.
          • Re:uh oh... (Score:4, Informative)

            by Belacgod (1103921) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:24PM (#19878293)
            You read it here.

            The problem is, very few people in the Islamic world are polygamous anymore. Maybe a few rich Afghans, Sudanese, or Saudis, but they represent a tiny fraction of all Muslims. Polygamy has vanished in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, North Africa, Iran, Indonesia...

            As with most religions, Islamic practice has little to do nowadays with its historical theology. Western writers who only know a little bit about the latter and nothing about the former just make themselves look like idiots.

  • Conspiracy theorists believe the funding was provided by a group of cats ...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2007, @11:47AM (#19877685)
    I am terrified at the implications of this!
  • Cool! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:48AM (#19877689)
    I hope to see commercials advertising fear-curing pills within the next few years so I can rush to the pharmacy with a prescription. In fact I think we should charge ahead with this and eliminate fear everywhere by putting it in the water with the fluoride. I see no downside or risk!
  • bad? (Score:3, Funny)

    by rubycodez (864176) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:48AM (#19877693)
    How can it be known fear won't be suppressed in similar situations where necessary flight or fight reactions are necessary to survival? oh, and also I for one welcome our new fearless squeaky rodent overlords.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2007, @11:50AM (#19877721)
    ...the Darwin Awards suddenly recieves a flood of new entries.
  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:50AM (#19877727)
    Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.

    - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

  • by evilpenguin (18720) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:51AM (#19877735)
    In all seriousness, what's the half life of this compound in the mice? I realize this is a long way from human use, but this seems like a damned foolish invention. You might think, for example, that you want soldiers without fear, but I would argue that a fearless soldier is soon a dead soldier. And I think even in everyday life this would be a dangerous state. Fear is a very primitive emotion and all creatures (well, certainly all mammals) seem to have it in varying degrees. In so many places it has a clear survival function. I'm not sure I'm keen to see a population messing about with such fundamental emotions.
    • by Ogive17 (691899) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:35PM (#19878451)
      You're assuming fear creates rational decisions, which we can probably all agree isn't always the case. I'll admit in the case of a solider, a little fear probably helps them with some decisions... and on the flip side, fear could keep them from doing something vital to the mission and endangering the lives of everyone else around them.

      Fears aren't just life threatening events, it could be a solider is scared of heights but needs to repel down the side of a building. They could be walking through the jungle with an extreme case of arachniphobia and unable to keep aware because he's pre-occupied with not walking through a spider web.

      If this did ever become a viable product, I would hope for the sake of humanity it would only target irrational fears (spiders, darkness.. etc).. to be without any fear whatsoever... would we even be human anymore?
  • Fear is a useful mechanism in preventing humans from doing things that have potentially bad consequences for the person.
    • by RingDev (879105) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:13PM (#19878127) Homepage Journal
      And I share the concerns about the abuse of this potential drug.

      But there are mental illnesses that deal with crippling fears, where extreme fear of seemingly insignificant things can prevent a person from interacting with society in a meaningful way. For those people, this drug could bring relief, and a chance for a normal life. But control is paramount, and I'd need to see a LOT of clinical trial and years in the open market before it gets into military use. Fear will keep you alive on a battle field, but crippling fear will get your unit killed. Not only that, but being in a war zone isn't 24x7 guns blazing and shells falling. It's minutes of near death experiences followed by minutes, hours, days, even weeks of no activity. Knowing that at any second an explosion could rip you to shreds, or small arms fire could light you up. That is the stress that kills, the constant fear tearing at the back of your mind. Some people have even described the start of an attack as a relief, as they no longer do they have to sit in anticipation of the attack. If this drug could help prevent soldier from locking up in high stress moments, and relieve the pressure from the tedium of war, then I could have a solid benefit for the military.

      If on the other hand, it takes away their fear of bullets, reprisal, and other control mechanisms... then it is nothing we want to give to anyone with a gun.

      -Rick
  • Social Anxiety (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Verteiron (224042) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:53AM (#19877785) Homepage
    Aside from treatments for shell-shocked war vets, I wonder if this could be used to treat more mundane fears as well such as phobias and social anxiety. That could be a boon to many, many people; social anxiety may sound wussy, but it is a misery-inducing and debilitating condition.
  • by Dun Malg (230075) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:57AM (#19877839) Homepage
    Fear is what keeps us from doing dangerous things. Fear is an important part of our survival system. Targeting contextual fears could be therapeutically useful, but I think "cure" is the wrong word. The ultimate word on fear, though, comes from Jack Handy:

    Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, say you were an astronaut on the moon and you fear your partner had been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for moon pieces, WHAM!, you just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, "Think again, Batman!"
  • by Bullfish (858648) on Monday July 16 2007, @11:59AM (#19877873)
    Because it take no courage to do something you are not afraid of doing (or saying)...

  • by Control Group (105494) * on Monday July 16 2007, @12:03PM (#19877973) Homepage
    Everyone seems to be hopping on the "but fear is useful!" bandwagon - but I'm not sure it is. Fear, the emotion, is an instinctive reaction to danger, whether that danger is real or simply perceived. I don't see that it's necessarily bad to replace the gut response with a rational response.

    That is, I doubt the drug will remove awareness of danger, simply the emotional reaction to it. While supersoldiers leap to every SF fan's mind, imagine what this could do for everyone who's got any kind of irrational fear. Fear of flying, fear of public speaking, fear of talking to girls, the whole list of phobias. Even in situations where fear is justified - wartime combatants, for example - I don't know that fear is helpful in comparison to the ability to rationally assess threats.

    Regardless, in society at large most people most of the time aren't afraid of real threats, they're afraid of imagined (or at least, disproportionately perceived) threats.

    Besides which, even the real threats faced by a significant percentage of people in modern industrialized society strike me as predominantly not susceptible to the "fight, flight, or freeze" response.
    • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:17PM (#19878193)
      Gut response is fast. Thinking is slow. When you're dead to react rationally, it doesn't help much. Yeah, it might misfire 9 times out of 10. That one occasion saves your life when it is not a misfire.

      The "breakthrough" is about blocking fear not about replacing it with another mechanism.

      On a related did you know that we live around half a second in the PAST? That is the delay of the mind. Our brain fakes the memories so we don't notice it practically, but there is a reason why subconscious or gut responses exist.
  • RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kiick (102190) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:09PM (#19878059)
    I see from all the comments that nobody actually read the article.

    The 'cure' doesn't eliminate any and all fear. It doesn't address situational fear at all.
    What it 'cures' is LEARNED fear responses. It's specific application to, for example, soldiers would be
    for PTSD.

    And even if there was a way to get read of all fear reactions, you'd still have a BRAIN and the ability
    to choose not to do things that you reason are too risky.

    Seriously, read the article. It's interesting.

    Sheesh.
  • by Stefanwulf (1032430) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:19PM (#19878215)
    As I read this article, it isn't about making something fearless or preventing fear...it's more about increasing the rate at which a learned fear response decays in the absence of reinforcement. Essentially, the brain has built in mechanisms to "cure" fear on its own, given enough time without reinforcement of that particular fear. Inhibition of this enzyme--oddly enough one linked with plasticity and neural development--makes that process easier/faster.

    If I understand correctly, then they are right in saying this would be potentially wonderful for treating cases of PTSD where the fear response does not significantly decrease even at points in time far removed from the initial trauma, but I don't think we have to worry about inhibition of this enzyme erasing people's ability to feel fear or leading to fear-based weapons systems. Those things are almost certainly possible (lesions on the amygdala are thought to tame animals by destroying their ability to feel fear), but I don't think they'll appear as a result of this study.
  • fear is good. It stops us from doing stupid things.

    Like posting without RTFA.

    Tom
  • by dbolger (161340) on Monday July 16 2007, @12:29PM (#19878349) Homepage
    ...I just use my Tremor Totem. Easy :D