New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Time to Forget

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

I sat at a piano in a sun-filled modern church. The audience—other young pianists and their parents—watched as I played the first eight notes of a piece by composer Edvard Grieg. At the ninth note, I froze. I tried again: da dee dee dee, da-da dee dee. Silence. On the third try, chords tumbled from my fingers, and the piece flowed from there.

That event at age 14 was scarring, and I soon stopped taking piano lessons. Two years ago, however, I revisited that dormant memory as the band I joined much later prepared for its public debut. Too bad I’m a terrible performer, I thought gloomily.

But as this month’s special report makes clear, recalling a memory also reshapes it. Memories are not preserved behind air locks in some squishy cellular vault. Rather they resemble clouds swirling in the currents. Change the conditions in which you remember, and the reminiscence twists accordingly, as journalist Ingfei Chen writes in “A Feeling for the Past.” In the mutable landscape of memory, a sharp mind must also delete thoughts selectively. Scientific American Mind’s Ingrid Wickelgren explains why in “Trying to Forget.” If letting things go is a struggle, the nuclear option—a pill to blot out the past—may soon offer respite, writes journalist Adam Piore in “Totaling Recall.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Experiments on memory reveal how slippery our sense of truth can be. Stephen L. Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde, experts on visual illusions, show how researchers exploit our error-ridden models of reality in “Mind-Warping Visions.” For a light take on our all-too-human inconsistencies, turn to “The Partnership Paradox,” by NPR’s Joe Palca and Flora Lichtman. You will learn why your beloved’s once alluring traits now seem so singularly annoying.

As for my botched recital, I no longer dodge the memory as if rotting vegetables were flying at my face. The problem, I now believe, was not stage stupor but my lousy practice record at the time. By rewriting that old memory to underscore effort rather than incapability, I shifted my sense of self—and my hopes for the future.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe