Retrieval does not induce reconsolidation of inhibitory avoidance memory

It has been suggested that retrieval during a nonreinforced test induces reconsolidation instead of extinction of the mnemonic trace. Reconsolidation would preserve the original memory from the labilization induced by its nonreinforced recall through a hitherto uncharacterized mechanism requiring protein synthesis. Given the importance that such a process would have in terms of maintaining, as part of the animal behavioral repertoire, a learned response that has been devalued by experience, we analyzed its existence for the memory associated with a one-trial, step-down inhibitory avoidance task (IA), a memory whose consolidation and extinction require protein synthesis in the CA1 region of the dorsal hippocampus (CA1) and involve the participation of the basolateral amygdala (BLA) and entorhinal cortex (ENT). Rats were trained in IA, and 24 h later they were submitted either to a pure reactivation session (retrieval without stepping down), which was unable by itself to initiate extinction of the avoidance response, or to a second training session. Fifteen minutes before or 3 h after either the reactivation or the retraining sessions, animals were infused with the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin (ANI) into CA1, BLA, or ENT. Contrary to the prediction of the reconsolidation hypothesis, none of these treatments affected subsequent memory retention. Because reconsolidation is regarded to be a direct consequence of retrieval, one would expect that, when given before a retention test or a pure reactivation session, enhancers of memory expression should permanently improve retention and, therefore, facilitate retrieval both in that and in subsequent sessions. Using two well-known retrieval enhancers, noradrenaline and adrenocorticotropin(1-24), we could not find any evidence suggestive of reconsolidation. Hence, our results indicate that there is no retrieval-induced, protein synthesis-dependent process that would cause reconsolidation of IA memory.     

Differential efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral intervention versus pharmacological treatment in the management of fibromyalgic syndrome

Given that studies about the differential efficacy of existing treatments in fibromyalgia syndrome are scarce, the aim of this study was to compare the differential efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral and a pharmacological therapy on fibromyalgia. Using a randomized controlled clinical trial, 28 fibromyalgic patients were assigned to one of following experimental conditions: (a) pharmacological treatment (i.e., cyclobenzaprine), (b) cognitive-behavioral intervention (i.e., stress inoculation training), (c) combined pharmacological and cognitive-behavioral treatment and (d) no treatment. The results show the superiority of cognitive-behavioral intervention to reduce the severity of fibromyalgia both at the end of the treatment and at follow-up. We conclude that cognitive-behavioral interventions must be considered a primary treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome.     

The Budapest meeting 2005 intensified networking on ethics of science

This paper reports on the meeting of the Sounding Board of the EU Reprogenetics Project that was held in Budapest, Hungary, 6-9 November 2005. The Reprogenetics Project runs from 2004 until 2007 and has a brief to study the ethical aspects of human reproductive cloning and germline gene therapy. Discussions during The Budapest Meeting are reported in depth in this paper as well as the initiatives to involve the participating groups and others in ongoing collaborations with the goal of forming an integrated network of European resources in the fields of ethics of science.     

Mononormativity,Polypride, and the “Mono–Poly Wars”

Both in everyday life and scholarly discourse, monogamists and polyamorists tend to unfavorably portray one another as somehow flawed, misguided, or, in a word, “inferior.” This article documents and critically examines two pairs of interlocked psychosocial attitudes—monopride/polyphobia and polypride/monophobia—mediating this predicament of mutual competition in the context of Western mononormative culture. The ideological nature of these “mono–poly wars” is demonstrated through a brief review of empirical literature on the psychological health and relationship quality of monogamous and polyamorous individuals and couples. The article concludes by outlining a critical pluralist approach that eschews universalizing hierarchies between monogamy and polyamory, and provides tools for making qualitative distinctions within and among relational styles.