X-Message-Number: 15400 From: Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:16:47 EST Subject: Long-term Record Alcor's published announcement regarding vitrification advancements and their immediate procedural changes were confusing to me. I read it several times. I was gratified by Paul Wakfer's comments to a reader who had apparently been more so confused. That reader's interpretation of the announcement may have been exemplary of "John Q. Public's" understanding and reaction. Words "out of the mouths of babes" are apparently sometimes in the form of misunderstandings and questions. We all like good news. And there may be more scientific substantiation to any and all underlying current vitrification advancement reportings than we have been made aware. However, perhaps more so than any other field, the acceptance of cryonics by the scientific community and the general public will be dependent on a long-term record of unyielding credibility and accountability. It will also be atypically contingent on the *perception* of credibility and accountability. In most any other "industry," if a company's product announcement appears overly optimistic to the consumer or industry analysts, no problem. They may be "vindicated" shortly thereafter with the successful production of the product described. In our case, an ultimate vindication may not be obvious for many decades, where the costs of a lack of vindication may be high for many decades. Its somewhat ironic that a goal as ambitious as cryonics must be attended to so conservatively. Competition is the checks and balance system of the market. The scientific method, including peer review, is the checks and balance system in science. Robert Ettinger (of CI) and others (including Alcor, ACS and others) have both an inherent interest and responsibility to see that these "self-regulating" systems function in cryonics. Certainly those who critically question do a service to any and all existing or potential cryobiologists who have a known (or unknown) interest in cryonics. I suspect that the Society for Cryobiology has nothing against the prospect of successful reanimation of humans in the future via cold storage in the present. Their concern is to be taken seriously by the public and their peers in their chosen field of science in a world where the vast majority have seriously discounted cryonics. Rightfully or not, scientists have an uneasy appreciation for the term "science fiction." Cryonics has been the subject of many such writings for many years (as similar to space travel to the Moon). Perhaps due to Dr. Drexler's ongoing Nobel Prize-winning work, I for one believe that the Society for Cryobiology may find it to be to their "reputational" advantage to reconsider their longtime stance on cryonics--beyond the professional and personal interests of some of their membership. Of course, the leadership of the Society no doubt realize that the public may not get the distinction between cryobiology and cryonics, so "legitimate reasons" may remain for the Society to resist blurring the line. Regardless, the credibility and accountability issue for cryonics will remain important for cryobiologists to remain, or become, associated with it. I believe rigorous scientific vigor and vigilance, particularly regarding reporting and critiquing, will remain important for the health and growth of cryonics into the foreseeable future. I am curious if Dr. Drexler has had any comment on cryopreservation techniques and their likely assistance or not for future molecular-level repair? Regards, David C. Johnson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15400