X-Message-Number: 11707
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 22:29:20 -0400
From: "Stephen W. Bridge" <>
Subject: Darwin's improvements
To CryoNet
From Steve Bridge
May 8, 1999
Re: Mike Darwin's Message #11685
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 07:47:34 -0400
Subject: Cryonics: Yesterday's Technology Tomorrow
And follow-ups by others.
Mike always gets a response, doesn't he? Some newer CryoNet readers
seemed a bit stunned and may even know very little of who Mike Darwin is.
I'll give just a bit of necessary background and perspective before
commenting on his post and others' questions.
Mike is one of the ten most important people in cryonics history, perhaps
pretty high up on that list. He got involved with the Cryonics Society of
New York when he was 13 and participated in at least two suspensions
before he was out of high school. He worked with the Chamberlains in
California for a year or so in the early days of Alcor, then moved back to
Indianapolis where we met in 1976. In July, 1977, Mike, Allen Lopp, and I
(and several other people) founded the Institute for Advanced Biological
Studies. In 1981 Mike and Allen moved to California, where later we
merged IABS into Alcor. Mike was President of Alcor for about 5 years and
was employed by Alcor in some fashion until late 1992, when he went off to
concentrate on research.
A good number of us involved in Cryonics, especially in Alcor and in
CryoCare, owe our participation to Mike Darwin. Mike took Alcor from a
disorganized small organization with only a handful of adequately funded
members and yanked it into full-fledged existence by massive amounts of
work, determination, and inspiration.
Some perspective of how you read Mike's post might be gained by
understanding that Mike Darwin is probably the single most convincing
individual I have ever met. Over the years, my awareness of this trait
has been tempered by the knowledge that Mike may be just as convincing
about the reverse side of an argument as he is about the initial side,
depending on his frame of mind at the moment and what knowledge (positive
or negative) he has gained recently.
Interestingly, in his recent post he talks about major progress in the
scientific knowledge of cryonics that would have most of us crowing with
pride in the same circumstances -- and perhaps at other times in his life
Mike might have reacted that way, too.
Over the years, politics, negative personal interactions, finances, and
genuine differences of opinion have caused many splits in cryonics
organizations. Mike is one of those right in the middle of all of those
problems and reorganizations (as I am myself, as former President of
Alcor). Some people have said that Mike is one of those people that you
either love or hate; but that is much too simple. It is possible to love
Mike and want to throw him off a balcony at the same time; just as it
possible to hate him, admire his accomplishments, and enjoy his company at
the same time.
I did not see Mike's post as "offensive" or even particularly
disheartening, except that I am sad to see Mike's frustration boiling over
after so many years of what appears to be significant progress. I applaud
Mike's success at achieving significant medical progress in his research
and deeply hope that those insights can be applied by someone (including
Alcor) in the near future.
Mike's frustration is obviously NOT because he is unhappy at doing good
science. He is unhappy that even though "people in the cryonics community
were kept appraised of this [progress]", and that "the technology to block
or mitigate this injury has existed since 1994 and has been greatly
improved upon since," "almost no one cared enough about any of this
progress to do anything about it."
He then goes on to make several quite true observations about the problems
with cryonics and cryonics organizations (no patient or scientific
feedback, lack of alternative procedures, cryonics organizations making
the decisions as to what techniques will or will not be offered, etc.).
He follows this by repeating, "the technology to vastly decrease both
ischemic damage and cryoinjury now exists and is implementable in a cost-
effective fashion." But he then goes on to state with emphasis, "It will
NOT be used on these people. In fact, arguably it will not be used on
anybody for a long while yet. My dog Cannibal may be the first to get it,
and he unarguably deserves it more than the vast majority of the rest of
you."
"With a handful of exceptions, only people such as Saul Kent, Bill Faloon,
and the stalwarts that have worked, and supported the work, to make these
advances are the only other people remotely deserving of benefit from
them."
I should note here that all long-time cryonics activists share Mike's
frustrations about how few people who otherwise claim to have a deep
personal interest in cryonics and their own survival have put much money
and work into it, especially into research. Many Alcor members and others
could afford to donate or invest large sums but do not. Saul and Bill are
not the wealthiest people in cryonics, yet they have contributed the
largest amount of donations since at least 1982. And I also am frustrated
that cryonics technology has progressed very little in actual usage since
1979.
Several other people have asked Mike the obvious "Why will it not be used
on anyone else?" Mike derides the "socialist" nature of cryonics
organizations yet he seems to claim that he will also withhold his
discoveries from the open market. That's his right, of course, if he is
the discoverer and if his contracts with Saul Kent, Bill Faloon, and other
stalwarts permit that kind of control. But it does seem puzzling.
As a former President of Alcor and current member of the Board of
Directors, I know that Alcor and other organizations DO want the
improvements that Mike and others have developed and have in fact
attempted to negotiate the purchase of this technology. Talks take place
at various times but nothing has been resolved to date. I will not go
into any detail on specific problems or discussions, since I have not been
personally involved in most of the talks. Anyway, those should stay
private unless everyone involved agrees to discuss them openly. In
general, however, as might be expected, there are several sticking points
which must be overcome in *any* negotiations of this sort.
Some of these might be:
1. Determining which discoveries are covered by patents that 21st Century
Medicine or BioPreservation have been granted and thus require a fee.
2. Determining which discoveries are not patentable for one reason or
another and can be used without paying a fee.
3. Determining which discoveries involve patents by other research
companies or disputed patents. These would require separate negotiations
of varying complexity.
4. What price will the owning company place on acquiring the permission
to use the patents? The seller has to set a price and then a buyer must
be willing and able to pay that price. This process is more complex in
cryonics than in most negotiations. If the research to develop and
produce a product costs, say $3 million -- but it will only be used 3-4
times per year (or fewer) over the next several years -- then how do you
set a price that will be bearable for both sides? And this process will
probably include *several* products and techniques like this.
5. Which original solutions or equipment or techniques must be purchased
from Mike and his partners directly and which must be purchased through
outside vendors?
6. How much training is available to teach any new methods which must be
learned for administering the new discoveries to a patient?
7. Which discoveries can be simply added onto an existing protocol and
which will cause other major changes?
I'm sure these kinds of questions can go on forever, and I'm sure this
process leaves Mike as frustrated as it does every one of us. Now add to
this the fact that most of the participants in the discussions have been a
part of cryonics for at least a decade, with several key people having
extremely complex love-hate-admiration-sneering-cooperation-warfare
relationships with Mike and with each other. And add all of the
expectations and politics of their Board and memberships, tugging and
pulling in several different directions. Yes, these things do make a
difference in all human interactions, whether we like it or not. We
cannot just cry "the marketplace" and mean anything useful at this level
of negotiations in the small village that cryonics still is. It's not
like there are dozens of cryonics companies out there competing for this
information.
I want to briefly comment on Bob Ettinger's observation (in Message
#11695) that the goal in cryonics is not current survival of a whole
animal but instead future survival of a brain. It is possible that the
discoveries by 21st Century Medicine and Biopreservation will help do
BOTH; but determining the purpose for which one is buying a new drug or
technique is another complication for negotiations.
Bob also rightly notes that a drug or technique which will only create
improvements in situations where it has to be administered within minutes
of circulatory arrest will not be able to be used on the majority of
cryonics patients today. So how much should a cryonics group be willing
to pay for improvements that might only be used on 1 out of 3 patients?
Should the cryonics group double its minimum funding requirements for
everyone when only a few will benefit? Maybe the answer is yes; but this
is another consideration to add in to all of the above as cryonics
organizations try to determine a realistic cost-benefit estimate.
(The "1 out of 3" above is Mike's own estimate from his post; the reality
might vary from group to group. E.g., an organization with its own
cryotransport team is more likely to be on site when the patient is
pronounced dead and might be able to use these improvements more often
than a group with no traveling team.)
Back to Mike Darwin's message: he finally says, "I will be leaving an
active role as a service provider in cryonics as of 25 June, 1999."
Some responders seem to have interpreted that to mean that Mike is
dropping all connections with cryonics; but that is NOT what he wrote. He
wrote that he will no longer be a "service provider in cryonics." As Mike
has announced for over a year, he doesn't want to do the human
cryopreservation itself anymore. I have not spoken to Mike about this and
am not attempting to speak for him. But is pretty clear that he means he
will not be on site at any future cryonic suspensions. That will no doubt
distress some people and relieve others.
Whether Mike Darwin plans to leave cryonics in other ways is an open
question, I suppose. In any case, he has not addressed it in this post.
Steve Bridge
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11707