We muck around with Bleeprin in the PPC, laughing about agents overdosing or goiing loopy, but it's very possible that people could overuse it just as so many pharmaceutical are overused. Dependancy would be so damn easy. The article touches on this, but not in enough detail, I think.

Really, I hope that they find some flaw and dump the whole project. Too risky. And besides that, people need to learn to deal with fear, or they're just going to spend their lives fearing an incident that will make them afraid. That's no way to live.

The drug does not take away the memory; it takes away the fear associated with the memory. The person would still have the bad memory. He would just not be affraid of it anymore.

I'm reading the linked article and though the point of the Dutch researcher is made (not changing the memory, just changing the response), the British scientists that respond (mostly) seem to fail to see this point. They're talking about it being bad to change a bad memory, 'cause memories are useful. But the memory wasn't changed, the response to it was. So it would have been nice to see these scientists respond to the usefulness (or not) of changing a response to a bad memory.

They make valid points, though they are some what irrelevant to the research that was presented.

That said, when the item opened my first thought was of bleeprin aswell.

A medication that creates memory loss...that remineds me of a book I read called Kiss, it was by Ted Dekker. The Heroine lost her memory due to a medication that supresses the memory.

But British experts questioned the ethics of tampering with the mind.

Hang on. I thought this stuff's affecting brain chemistry. Time, perhaps, these scientists realised brain = mind? 'Cause if they haven't yet made that link, surely the experiments were a tad unethical in the first place?