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