Mechanisms of memory [mis-]identified

This is a continuing, not very effective line of research in my opinion. That memories are stored in molecules, partly due to the 3-D bending and contorting of some kind of protein or nucleic acid, is obvious to me. (See a previous post on the subject.) Only protein, DNA, and RNA is complex enough for this task, in my view.

Obviously, there is neuronal transmission involved with the formation of memory and blocking it blocks memory. This is not, as the article (and others like it) imply, getting to the actual mechanism of memory.

phys.org

"By blocking certain mechanisms that control the way that nerve cells in the brain communicate, scientists from the University of Bristol have been able to prevent visual recognition memory in rats...

"One hypothesis is that changes at the specialised junctions (synapses) between nerve cells in the brain, hold the secrets to learning and memory. The change in the strength of communication between synapses is called synaptic plasticity and, it is believed, the mechanisms of synaptic plasticity may be important for learning and memory. Bashir and his colleagues tested this hypothesis...

"Dr Sarah Griffiths, lead author on the paper, explained: “Nerve cells in the perirhinal cortex of the brain are known to be vital for visual recognition memory. Using a combination of biological techniques and behavioural testing, we examined whether the mechanisms involved in synaptic plasticity are also vital for visual recognition memory.”

"In their experiments, they were able to identify a key molecular mechanism that controls synaptic plasticity in the perirhinal cortex. They then demonstrated that blocking the same molecular mechanism that controls synaptic plasticity also prevented visual recognition memory in rats. This shows that such memory relies on specific molecular processes in the brain."

[What a brilliant thing to prove. What are the alternatives? That memory relies on "general" molecular processes in the brain? That it relies on "non-molecular" processes? Like maybe purely ionization, or something like noble gases? Practically every life process relies on "specific molecular processes!"

The exceptions, like the concentration of Na+ in the cell, are quite simple and obviously memory is not something like that. Even the concentration of Na+ in the cell, really depends on "specific molecular processes." Or perhaps their brilliance lies in the assertion that memory is "in the brain?" That narrows it down. It's not in the hand, or the appendix?

Sloppy writing, sloppy thinking, and sloppy science.