X-Message-Number: 22798 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:16:27 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: reply to Doug Skrecky and Dave Pizer To Dave Pizer: I agree that the public perception of cryonics is going to be increasingly important as it becomes a politically sensitive topic. I admire your enterprise, Dave (in particular, you have done a fabulous job at Creekside Preserve) but where your magazine is concerned, I doubt that it has the potential to change many minds. Based on a look at the first issue, I fear it may actually perpetuate the fringe/religious associations of cryonics. I suggest that what the field really needs in a publication is something that looks as if it came from a research institution or a hospital. I am convinced that the #1 most important initiative, to safeguard the legitimacy of cryonics, would be to establish a standards body or trade association, similar to the American Medical Association, which would establish regulations before other people do it for us. This is precisely what the American Hang Gliding Association did, at a time when that activity was on the brink of being outlawed. The comparison may seem remote, but it isn't. Hang gliding used to be a source of regulatory concern for the same reasons that cryonics is now attracting attention. It appealed to a "lunatic fringer" of rebellious noncomformists who wanted the freedom to do indulge their idiosyncratic ideas about glider design (not always based on good science). Gliders managed to evade existing regulations regarding airspace, because they were a new concept. Anyone could call himself a pilot or an instructor. Communities were concerned about liability. Sounds familiar? It should. I made this comparison more than 10 years ago. Unfortunately cryonicists may turn out to be even less inclined to cooperate with each other than hang-gliding enthusiasts, and cryonics is an even smaller field. Thus there is absolutely no sign of any inclination among cryonics organizations to reach a consensus on minimally acceptable procedures. To Doug Skrecky: This seems marginally important at best, but I hate to see dubious data circulated without a response. On Google, context is everything. Quote marks around "Saul Kent" provide no assurance that all the hits relate to just one person with the relatively common name of Saul Kent. Search for "Saul Kent" cryonics and you get 2690 hits. Try "Saul Kent" "life extension" and you get 1410 hits. My own name is not very common, but even for me, context makes a radical difference, since there is another Charles Platt who is quite a well-known architect. Thus a search for the name alone produces 12300 hits, but addition of the context word "cryonics" reduces it to 3890. And so on. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22798