STS Lab, Institute of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Adv Neurobiol. 2024;38:259-272. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-62983-9_14.
In this chapter, we identify three distinct avenues of research on the philosophical, historical, and sociopolitical dimensions of engram research. First, we single out the need to refine philosophical understandings of memory within neuroscientific research on the engram. Specifically, we question the place of constructivist and preservationist philosophical claims on memory in the formulation of the engram concept and its operationalization in contemporary neuroscience research. Second, we delve into the received historiography of the engram claiming its disappearance after Richard Semon's (1859-1918) coinage of the concept. Differently from this view, we underline that Semon's legacy is still largely undocumented: Unknown are the ways the engram circulated within studies of organic memory as well as the role Semon's ideas had in specific national contexts of research in neurosciences. Finally, another research gap on the engram concerns a socio-anthropological documentation of the factual and normative resources this research offers to think about memory in healthcare and society. Representations of memory in this research, experimental strategies of intervention into the engram, as well as their translational potential for neurodegenerative (e.g., Alzheimer's disease) and psychiatric (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder) conditions have not yet received scrutiny notwithstanding their obvious social and political relevance.All these knowledge gaps combined call for a strong commitment towards interdisciplinarity to align the ambitions of a foundational neuroscience of the engram with a socially responsible circulation of this knowledge. What role can the facts, metaphors, and interventional strategies of engram research play in the wider society? With what implications for philosophical questions at the foundation of memory, which have accompanied its study from antiquity? And what can neuro- and social scientists do jointly to shape the social and political framings of engram research?
在本章中，我们确定了关于记忆印痕研究的哲学、历史和社会政治维度的三种不同研究途径。首先，我们需要细化神经科学对记忆印痕研究中的哲学理解。具体来说，我们质疑建构主义和保存主义哲学对记忆的主张在记忆印痕概念的形成及其在当代神经科学研究中的操作化中的地位。其次，我们深入探讨了记忆印痕的传统史学，声称在理查德·西蒙（Richard Semon）（1859-1918）创造这个概念之后，它就消失了。与这种观点不同，我们强调西蒙的遗产在很大程度上仍然未被记录：不知道记忆印痕在有机记忆研究中是如何传播的，以及西蒙的思想在神经科学特定国家研究背景中所起的作用。最后，记忆印痕研究中的另一个研究空白是对事实和规范资源的社会人类学记录，这些资源可用于思考医疗保健和社会中的记忆。记忆在该研究中的再现、对记忆印痕的实验干预策略，以及它们在神经退行性疾病（如阿尔茨海默病）和精神疾病（如创伤后应激障碍）方面的转化潜力，尽管具有明显的社会和政治相关性，但尚未受到审查。所有这些知识空白都需要加强跨学科研究，以协调记忆印痕基础神经科学的雄心与这种知识的社会责任感循环。记忆印痕研究的事实、隐喻和干预策略可以在更广泛的社会中发挥什么作用？它们对记忆研究从古代开始就伴随着的基础哲学问题有什么影响？神经科学家和社会科学家可以共同做些什么来塑造记忆印痕研究的社会和政治框架？
