X-Message-Number: 2887 From: Date: Wed, 13 Jul 94 19:35:55 EDT Subject: SCI.CRYONICS cryonics skeptics Casual observers of media reporting on cryonics have had very little opportunity to evaluate its merits or lack of merit. In part this is because the proponents never have sufficient opportunity to challenge the so-called experts who denigrate it. In turn, this is partly because the moderators or writers waste too much time on the entertainment aspects rather than trying to make a rational assessment. Now, however--as I understand it--Usenet users include considerable numbers of people who are not in cryonics but have a scientific focus and might be willing to listen to reason. To capture the interest of some of these people, possibly it may be useful for me to repeat some of the prevalent capsule dismissals of cryonics by "experts" and respond to them. These short rebuttals, if not totally convincing in themselves, may at least arouse some to further inquiry. The hope or expectation is that people in cryostasis, frozen after clinical and legal death--even if prepared by present, relatively crude methods--can eventually be rescued and restored to active life and youthful good health. In other words, we expect that, sooner or later, technology will be capable of dealing with the immediate cause of death, prior disease or injury, damage caused by delays after death (if not too great), damage caused by the freeze/store/thaw process itself, and the deterioration of old age (senescence). So what are the chances? 1. Some of the most dishonest put-downs come from senior cryobiologists, of whom perhaps the most notorious is Arthur Rowe, a past president of the Society for Cryobiology. He tells anyone who will listen ( a godawful number) that reviving a cryostasis patient would be like "reconstituting a cow from hamburger." Well, countless specimens--including whole adult invertebrates (insects and shellfish, for example) as well as a few mammalian organs, human embryos, and most types of human tissue--have been revived after freezing. None has ever been revived after grinding. Let the reader judge, then, whether it is honest to say that revival after freezing would be as difficult as after grinding. 2. Another frequent assertion is that, after thawing, a brain would be "mush" like "thawed raspberries." This was repeated just recently by a Professor N. Kurti on British television. Leaving aside the fact that animal tissues in general are much LESS vulnerable to freezing damage than plant tissue, this just reveals total ignorance. Unless he was just lying or senile, he has never seen a frozen/thawed mammalian brain. I have, and so have many others in cryonics. They are NOT mush. Depending on methods used, much or most of the structure, including ultra structure, is well preserved. To the naked eye, they look normal or very nearly so, with easily distinguished features--not mush. Researchers in the Ukraine have been repeating experiments done by the Cryonics Institute using sheep heads, and their reports, with photos from the light microscope and electron microscope, have been or will be published in THE IMMORTALIST. 3. Perhaps the majority of cryobiologists merely say the chance of success is "negligible"--but they never offer any calculations of probability to support such assertions, nor do they ever offer any evidence that they are competent to demark the limits of future technology. In effect, the opposing scientists and physicians are saying that we should put no burden WHATEVER on the future--that we should not count on ANY technology that is not currently available, and should not try ANY unproven technology, even if the patient is already legally dead and has nothing whatever to lose. Further, no such opposing scientist has ever accepted an invitation to debate the question. They are willing to deliver snappy put-downs on TV, but will never hold still for cross examination by pro-cryonics experts. 4. The final bulwark of the opposition is that there is no "scientific basis" for cryonics. This was recently repeated on British TV by senior cryobiologist David Pegg--even though at the same time he admitted that one should not be dogmatic about the future. If these two statements together mean anything, they mean that it is never scientific to act upon an expectation not already completely proven. Clearly, this standard is not exactly universal. In fact, scientists and engineers typically bet their careers on possibilities that they hope to discover or prove. (If a research or engineering project were already proven, it wouldn't be a project.) Industry and the military routinely bet enormous sums on expectations and possibilities--with the full backing of their scientists. The Society for Cryobiology publishes the periodical CRYOBIOLOGY--but its editors will not even look at a paper offered by someone known to have cryonics connections, regardless of scientific merit (unless the writer agrees to keep his cryonics connections hidden). Let readers make their own judgment on this. If anyone is moved to investigate further, one way to begin is to request a package of information from us. No charge. (Please give a mailing address--too much for E-Mail.) Robert Ettinger Immortalist Society Cryonics Institute 24443 Roanoke Oak Park MI 48237 Phone (810) 548-9549 Phone/Fax (810) 547-2316 E-Mail <> Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2887