X-Message-Number: 1338
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Mike D. rides into the sunset
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:03:30 PST
Sigh, I don't need this kind of drain on my time. But since Mike
invokes me by name, I suppose I am obliged to respond.
Before doing so, a general comment: Many founders or early and
influential leaders of various organizations have had a rough
time with "their" organization growing beyond their having a lot
of influence. I suspect that Mike is no exception. It is also
clear to me that Mike should *never* have worked as an Alcor
employee after being replaced as president (in the depths of the
Dora Kent crisis) by Carlos. Had he become a consultant at that
time, perhaps some of this built up acrimony would have been
avoided.
[much deleted]
> Alcor has lost the serious commitment it once had to
>research. I am still trying to recover from the shock and anger
>I felt upon reading Keith Henson's words on Jerry Leaf and
>cryonics research in the September issue of Cryonics: "I think
>that a substantial part of the reason Jerry did not do a lot of
>research in the last few years is that he simply did not have any
>really good lines of research (which fell within available
>budgets) to follow. He was about to repeat and extend some very
>old work on hamsters at the time he went into suspension." The
>thrust of the rest of Keith's article is that true suspended
>animation may well require nanotechnology and that the costs and
>problems associated with suspended animation research are
>probably insurmountable for cryonics organizations in the
>foreseeable future. This from a Director of Alcor, and a
>technically sophisticated one at that! (And they let this guy
>remain on the Board?!) Keith's remarks are pure nonsense.
I think this is taken out of context. the best way I can deal
with the accusation that my "remarks are pure nonsense" is to
just post that column right here and let the readers decide:
Research and Development
By H. Keith Henson
Why Alcor has not done much research in the last four years has
been one of the topics raised in the recent political squabbles.
Another topic (raised partly because of a very expensive remote
standby) is how Alcor can accept larger numbers of under-a-year
terminal cases and not go broke (or burn out our volunteers) in
the process.
There is general agreement that nothing would cause cryonics to
grow faster than research results which demonstrated fully
reversible suspension. Research, however, takes people who have
the professional qualifications, talent, drive, and time to do
it, *and* a lot of money. All of these are in short supply.
Nowadays, if you are using animals, it also requires somebody on
the team with the patience of a saint to keep up on the
paperwork. There has been medium scale money and equipment
available since the TBW (total body washout) dog work was
completed (about the time Alcor moved over to Riverside). But
the amount of research done in all those years has been meager.
I think the lack of research stems from two factors. One major
problem has been a lack of time on the part of those who have the
talent for research (and since Jerry's suspension last year, a
shortage of people too.) Legal problems and Alcor's growth have
been significant factors in keeping talented people busy on
other, and more pressing matters. The other problem is that
achieving reversible suspension, even for one organ, has been
very difficult.
Even so, a large advance in the state of cryobiology, such as in
freezing kidneys for transplant, cryo-storage of hearts for
transplants, or, in situ freeze/thawing of brains would be very
valuable both as PR, and as proof we are on the right track.
The kidney work has demonstrated a lot of progress, but it has
turned out to be a *hard* problem which has not yielded in spite
of a high concentration of professional talent and money being
applied to it. Kidneys turn out to be easily damaged by cold.
If a process could be developed, there is a substantial market
for a kidney bank. Having a large number of kidneys available to
tissue match would greatly decrease rejection problems.
Because of the difficulty seen in cryopreserving kidneys, I
suspect that perfected (reversible) suspension is a very hard
problem. There may be no solution short of full blown
nanotechnology. The other two research possibilities might be
more tractable technically, but they too can be expected to eat
up a lot of money.
Cryo-storage of hearts for transplant would have been Jerry's
next project at UCLA if the Dora Kent events had not intervened.
If it had worked, it might have had a substantial commercial
market. There is a fair chance it might have worked, since
hearts are *really* tough.
Another possibility which has long been discussed is to try
freezing and thawing of in-situ brains using helium as the heat
transfer media. This would follow Dr. Suda's encouraging results
with isolated cat brains back in the '60s. This has no
commercial market, but would be of great interest to cryonicists.
(This reminds me of a signature line I saw appended to a computer
posting some time ago. "In a brain transplant operation, you
want to be the *donor*.")
The problem is that these research projects involve major
--million dollar scale--budgets. I think a substantial part of
the reason Jerry did not do a lot of research in the last few
years is that he simply did not have any really good lines of
research (which fell within available budgets) to follow. He was
about to repeat and extend some very old work on hamsters at the
time he went into suspension.
Is a million dollar research budget in the cards? I think it
will happen, but not soon. There are several Alcor members who
could fund such projects if they were convinced the projects were
of value, and (assuming continued growth) Alcor itself could
afford this kind of research budgets eventually. But I sure
can't say when.
Not that all research projects are very costly. We should
investigate the method of negative pressure CPR. (Essentially
CPR using a rubber suction disk similar to a plumber's helper to
pull the chest wall back and get better filling of the heart.)
We might try replacing the pad on one of our HLR units with one
of the new rubber disks, and use a bungee cord to pull the
plunger back.
As an aside, successful research teams seldom write a proposal
for work they are going to do. They write up a proposal for
*work they have already done*. As soon as they get the money,
they repeat the experiments, write up the results, and the
funding agencies are delighted that they were able to do what
they said they could do on time and in budget. These teams
develop quite a reputation. They then spend most of the money on
new work and write that up as a proposal. The only problem is
getting started . . . .
Research is what you do when you do not have a good idea of how
to do it. Research is inherently risky. Development is less
risky--though it often fails too. The way Alcor does transport
and suspension needs a lot of development--not to improve
suspension quality so much as to reduce the labor and cost
involved. As I pointed out in my last column, Alcor cannot
afford to do suspensions with medical professionals because of
the cost, and we will wear out the staff and our volunteers if
the number of suspensions continues to rise as it has in the last
few years and we cannot reduce the labor required.
One of the major drains on staff time is controlling a patient's
temperature descent to dry ice temperature, and then on down to
liquid nitrogen. Hugh Hixon and I have been working for a few
months on automating the process to reduce the labor required.
There turn out to be more pitfalls than we expected. Ice forming
and plugging up the circulation of the silicon oil we expected.
What surprised us was the effect of carbonated silicon oil on the
pumps (it foams and does not pump very well). Carlos made a very
clever suggestion which we are going to try soon. Perhaps a
longer report and some photos on this project next time.
[end September column]
Readers might note that the above is a 1200 word column. I
simply had no room to discuss more than three examples of
ongoing or potential cryonics/cryobiology research.
> There
>are literally dozens of projects that might be profitably pursued
>by Alcor in literally every area of cryonics research. I list
>but a few below:
>
> * Development of cryoprotectives (single agents and
>mixtures) in a rabbit brain slice model to reduce ice formation
>and thus greatly reduce or even eliminate the tremendous
>mechanical injury current patients are experiencing. This is
>relatively straightforward, inexpensive and incredibly valuable
>research.
While this lacks the PR thrust which was one of the point of my
column, I agree with your last sentence. However, who is
available to do the work?
> * Elimination of cracking injury. This requires
>straightforward studies, initially with bulk solutions of
>cryoprotective mixtures and eventually with perfused animals.
>This is more of an engineering problem than anything else and is
>well within the reach of a small budget.
I fully agree that this one is mostly an engineering problem.
That does not make it inexpensive to solve! Convince me by
posting some numbers. I have looked in some depth at the cost
involved to maintain patients at higher temperatures (which would
solve most of the cracking problems) and they are formidable.
Steve Harris came to much the same conclusion. If you have some
ideas on cryoprotective mixtures which might help, I would be
most interested. Incidentally, in the course of recent
development work on controlled freezing equipment I was greatly
impressed with how much *current* cryoprotective mixes reduce
damage (over what happens to a shell-frozen bag of water--talk
about impressive cracks!).
> * Demonstration of the viability of memory in mammals
>following conversion of 60% of brain water to ice. This is the
>"hamster" work which Keith mentions in passing. And it is not
>reduplication of old work since the work done almost 50 years ago
>never evaluated whether the animals retained memory of learned
>tasks following freezing.
Please take note of the sentence in the article:
He was about to repeat and extend some very
^^^^^^^^^^
> * Additional ultrastructural studies to determine at what
>point, during freezing or after thawing, the tremendous
>ultrastructural damage to brains is occurring. If a rabbit model
>is used this work could easily be done for $10,000 (and that's
>budgeting it at 4 times what the first project cost in the mid
>1980's using cats!). Additionally, the use of helium gas
>perfusion of the circulatory system during freezing could be
>investigated to determine if this would reduce vascular injury to
>the brain as it has been shown to do in some studies with kidneys
>and small intestine.
Write up a budget! Do you have time to do this yourself? Or do
you have any suggestions as to where we could find someone to do
it? Would you be interested in contracting to do it with
students from UC Riverside in your lab?
> * Improvement in TBW solutions and pre-medication of
>suspension patients so that they do not experience as much cold
>and warm ischemic injury. This is a more ambitious project in
>terms of costs and personnel. But in this case I know it can be
>done because I am already doing it, and doing it independent of
>Alcor with far less resources at my disposal!
Tanya, Ralph, Hugh, Arel and Naomi (all Alcor members) have been
involved with this project so I don't know if "independent" fully
applies. "Less resources" is interesting too. As I understand
it, you have a substantial fraction of Cryovita, and spent more
money getting set up than Jerry spent on Cryovita. Please
understand that I am highly appreciative of your efforts and
willing to help in any way you will let me.
> I could go on and on. The point is, Alcor has become an
>organization that has lost its research vision, lost the
>commitment it takes to do serious cryonics research
Come on Mike! Alcor also lost two of the three people who were
capable of doing research. Hugh has been busy as a one armed
paperhanger trying to pick up on the essentials of being ready to
suspend our members (not helped by the unwillingness of Cryovita
to sell any of the medical supplies). And still, we have made
considerable progress on automating the cooldown process. Not to
mention that Tanya is deep into work on process control
monitoring for the cryoprotective ramp.
> and lost the
>lead to other cryonics organizations who, however crudely, are
>doing real cryonics research!
News to me, but if they are, more power to them.
> Instead, Alcor spends its
>approximately $325,000 a year budget on other things -- most of
>them coming under the heading of administration and the
>recruitment of ever more members with promotions and contests and
>slick literature in a never ending quest to stay one step ahead
>of a Ponzi-style day of reckoning.
Hmm. This give the impression that we have a lot more leeway in
spending the budget than we do. There are things which we are
contractually obligated to do, like keep Alcor ready to do
suspensions. Cryovita pulling out (which you and Paul might have
had something to do with) has been a major cost burden.
Promotions--news to me. Contests--I know of one. The idea came
in from outside, and seemed like an opportunity to get more PR
attention for Alcor. (More detail as it becomes available, but
media is the largest source of new members for Alcor.) Slick
literature--you and Brian Wowk wrote it, Mike. "Ponzi-style day
of reckoning"? Sorry, I have no idea of what this might be
about.
> Alcor has lost its once serious commitment to keep its word
>when making promises such as not invading the Endowment Fund.
*I* think the promise was one Alcor could not keep, and never
should have been made. *You*, Mike, were on the board when the
first use of endowment fund money was made. How did you vote?
(It was dip into the endowment fund or have the state close the
doors when we were trying to get workman's compensation insurance.
The money was put back later.) The policy I promoted was one to
be honest about our occasional need to borrow from the fund.
> It
>has even lost its ability to maintain the confidentiality of its
>member/patient records. It has become an organization operating
>not at a cash surplus, but rather at a deep deficit. It has
>become an organization that delays paying many of its bills until
>its creditors all but scream (and sometimes until they actually
>do scream).
I will let Carlos comment on our relations with our creditors,
and how they compare with those of your tenure, but think for a
minute why Alcor has had a cash crunch lately, and who it was who
*spent* far beyond the budgeted money in Boston? Not
complaining, understand, but of all people, you should not be
either.
[deleted]
> An example of this erosion of trust which was a significant
>"precipitating" event for me was the failure of the Alcor Board
>to take any action to discipline a Director who has repeatedly
>violated both patient and member confidences -- in one case
>making deliberate, unauthorized, prohibited disclosures about a
>patient's medical history and suspension membership status,
>boasting about it afterwards and then stating to his fellow
>Directors (in my presence), that he has every intention of "doing
>it again if he feels the situation justifies it."
This is particularly amusing! Mike refers to *me* and to my
using the name of the patient (whom he knew personally) to get
*him* involved in a case. Sorry, Mike, but the board decided
that patient confidentiality (though *very* important to us) can
take a back seat in extreme situations to our *contractual
obligation* to do the best job we can on getting a member
suspended. If there are secret Alcor members out there who would
rather be buried than have anyone (say their doctor) find out
they are Alcor members in an emergency where they are near death,
they should let us know.
[much deleted]
> And speaking of cults, the hallmark of any cult is a
>constant and unrelenting demand for member conformity and
>agreement with leadership and the penalty for noncompliance is
>expulsion or even execution. I have witnessed Keith Henson, an
>Alcor Director, with the support of Carlos Mondragon, Alcor's
>President, and Joe Hovey, Alcor's Manager of Information Systems
>seriously propose terminating a member's suspension membership
>because he said things of which they did not approve and further
>proposed creating an institution framework to expel other
>suspension members who speak their mind in the future.
We did indeed talk about this. And thought better of it long
before we did anything, partly as a result of my talking with
Mike, and partly from the consideration (later well borne out)
that the person we were concerned about would be just as much of
a menace as a non-member as a member. Would you have us on the
board conform to the point where we would not even express our
thoughts?
> More
>recently I have seen Keith Henson try to "censure" Eric Klein
>merely for speaking his mind. Dear God, what has Alcor come to
>that these kind of men are running it, and what's more are
>continuing to run it after exhibiting such behavior?
You might note that Steve Bridge wrote a long "censure" of Eric
(posted here) which Al Lopp has suggested the board adopt as
official. I thought the board's response should be shorter and
to the point. Since you are making an issue about this matter, I
will post my proposed response of the board to Eric's accusations
of criminal activity:
"The board of directors of Alcor and Michael Riskin [an Alcor
member qualified by being a Certified Public Accountant] have
determined that there is no merit in the accusations made by Mr.
Klien that funds were improperly taken from the endowment fund.
Mr. Klien has no special knowledge in this field, having admitted
to a board member that he has never taken an accounting course.
Trust is perhaps the most important asset Alcor has. The board
of directors of Alcor does not appreciate trust-damaging
accusations made publicly by unqualified people, or people who do
not have all the facts. The board respectfully requests that in
the future members who believe they have uncovered improper
activities bring their accusations to the board *before*
spreading them on computer nets or handing them out on paper.
Finally, though we regret the necessity for one, the board wishes
to thank Mr. Klien for his pledge to help pay for an audit."
[note that the above is my suggested draft statement, not board
policy]
> To my growing horror I am discovering that cryonics, much
>like communism, promises to improve peoples' lives through
>science, give them a future of abundance, increase camaraderie,
>make them better human beings, redress many of the deep
>injustices of life,
I can manage to believe that cryonics might improve lives (almost
any kind of life is an improvement over being dead), and a future
which can rebuild the mess we put into storage has some hope for
abundance, but I can understand your disappointment if you think
cryonics promises to "increase camaraderie" or "make them better
human beings," or "redress many of the deep injustices of life."
That is asking *way* too much.
> and above all speed scientific and technical
>progress.
Hmm. If you can point out anywhere the Alcor literature says
this, I will try to get such grandiose statements pruned out. I
would think about putting them back in when Alcor has grown to
about a hundred times its currently tiny membership.
> The reality is that cryonics leads to financial ruin,
>bitter interpersonal disputes, increased anxiety, and above all a
>stultification of technological progress.
Financial ruin, bitter interpersonal disputes, and (especially
for some) increased anxiety, I will grant you. But a
stultification of technological progress? The entire budget of
Alcor would be an unnoticeable nit on even the research leading
in directions interesting to us.
> It seems that inherent
>in believing that today's techniques are good enough to rescue
>patients treated with them is a corollary decrease in any
>incentive to improve them.
> Instead of "Comes the Revolution" the mantra has become
>"Comes Nanotechnology." So deep is this corruption that a
>Director of Alcor actually has the nerve to say that the
>development of true suspended animation may well have to await
>the development of full-blown nanotechnology.
I stand by my statement. I used the word "may," would be
delighted to be proved wrong, and noted in the column that any of
several projects would be very valuable both as PR, and as proof
we are on the right track. However, I suspect that freezing
mammals and getting them back is going to be very hard, and
perhaps not within pre-nanotech technology. This belief does not
prevent me from supporting Mike's efforts by taking care of
children so their mothers can take part in recent work. Let me
assure you that a 5 year old wipes out any chance to get any of
*my* projects done that weekend!
> It's a lucky thing
>the idea of nanotechnology wasn't around in medicine or
>engineering in the distant past otherwise we would still be
>waiting on antibiotics, vaccines, blood compatible surfaces, and
>flying machines. We are doomed to failure when any "really
>difficult" problem becomes a task beyond our means and an
>achievement we must wait for "Our Friends In The Future" to
>deliver to us.
On the other hand, had the concepts of nanotechnology been taken
seriously when they were first talked about (1959) we might be
beyond the era of mucking about freezing people because we don't
have any better approach. STMs could have been made any time
after about 1930.
[much deleted]
> Since my return as a consultant to Alcor I have been
>repeatedly told by almost all of current management that they
>feel fully capable of doing suspensions without me, and what's
>more that they think they can do suspensions as well or better
>than they could with me. I have been told bluntly that the
>reason I have been "hired" is purely political and that I will be
>let go as soon as it is politically tenable to do so.
An interesting statement. Even if people thought this way, (and
all I know respect your knowledge) I don't know who would put it
in such a blunt way. Mike, could you send me private email as to
who did this? And when?
I can quote from a letter I wrote October 18 if anyone cares
to know what *I* have been saying:
"I should add that my opinion of the capabilities of the team
has changed for the better since [first suspension this year].
. . . . four suspensions this year and a lot of training has
had an effect. (I have also seen Mike have problems with
transports and suspensions nearly as serious as the worst case
I anticipated for the team at that time. I certainly don't
hold this against Mike: nobody is perfect, these situations
are sometimes impossible to control, and he beats up himself
over transport or suspension difficulties a lot worse than
anyone else can do.) I still feel we are likely in any
specific case to do a better job with Mike than without him,
but I have a lot more confidence that the team could do a
credible job on uncomplicated cases without him if it were
forced on us. I am particularly impressed with the abilities
and confidence Tanya has developed, and the grace-under-
pressure shown by several of the newer volunteers, particularly
Stan Gerber.
[deleted]
> The Suspension Administrator is a 24-year-old woman with no
>medical or technical background who's approach to cryonic
>suspension can best be described as flowcharting and knob
Sorry, Mike, you can't blame the PERT charts on Tanya, they came
off *my* computer--with help from Arel, Noami, and Hugh. (And if
you want a copy, ask.)
[deleted]
> I am still spending my time on cryonics. I am still as
>deeply committed to the success and growth of this idea as I ever
>was. To this end I am working in the laboratory to develop a
>reversible method of suspension.
I sincerely wish you the very best of luck.
H. Keith Henson
**********************************************************
I was considering responding to Paul Wakfer. But how can you
respond to something like point 7 of his letter?
>7) The absence of staff and volunteers who are passionate zealots,
> who eat, sleep and breath cryonics, eagerly working day and night
> seven days a week, and ready to move heaven and earth to thrust
> cryonics and immortalism into modern society, and to win the
> battle with deathism.
It is clear from point 3 that *my* level of dedication does not
satisfy Paul, and I operate uncomfortably close to the edge of a
sane level of involvement in cryonics. Well, march off to
battle, Paul. Keep these cards and letters coming on how you are
doing "thrusting cryonics and immortalism into modern society,"
and let us know when you "win the battle with deathism."
It is well after midnight, and *I* am going to bed.
Keith
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1338