X-Message-Number: 30553
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:13:52 -0700
From: "Finance Department" <>
Subject: Performance Reviews including those of CryoNet Posters

------=_Part_3908_25455085.1204179232389
Content-Disposition: inline

Tripper McCarthy's questions are right on target, and the same reply applies
to most of them:  Alcor has no ongoing research or development program,
despite a littered trail of false starts.  I've had less to say about this
issue because I consider a more important deficiency of Alcor that needs to
be addressed is that of their lack of a credible standby service.  But as to
research, Alcor simply doesn't keep science staff - they leave, sooner more
often than later, and the answer to that problem lies hidden somewhere in
its management and/or board.  The lack of even knowing the reasons for the
constant employee turnover at Alcor simply points up the need for more
transparency and member involvement in the process of deciding who is
qualified to be on its board.

Perhaps this item would be included under the "fracturing research"
category, but I seem to recall having read some months back something about
Alcor having an Intermediate Temperature Storage device for head-only that
they were running tests on.  I suppose this expensive piece of equipment is
just sitting there someplace gathering dust and rust in a closet, the
responsible researcher having departed that field for greener pastures?
Anyway it would be great to have it working, as supposedly without it
vitrified patients are subjected to unwarranted amounts of cracking by
having to be stored at lower temperatures.  Why bother with vitrification at
all if it isn't done right, in a safe manner for the patient?  Not to
mention Remote/Field Vitrification, which is the right and safe way to do
standby/stabilization, but is not even on Alcor's agenda much less their
radar screen.

And now my pen-pal Tim Freeman, who seems to be this month's mouthpiece for
Alcor and to be sucking up for a seat on its board, because I suppose he was
turned down for membership in ACS, made some statements recently that are
more notable in what they omit.

"All employers I've ever been involved with have kept their performance
reviews very private."

If Alcor acts like the ordinary American employer, it will never get the
extraordinary feat of cryonics done properly. But Tim ignored half of what I
mentioned and focused only on the reviews of the employees, and there he
does make some valid points.  The main point though is not to completely
disclose all kinds of specific employee information but to announce any
general observations and/or changes in management that the review has
produced. And I was more interested in what the employees had to say about
their management, the board, and the ongoing projects (if any).  A lot of
that information could be published without engendering any lawsuits.

Having said that, I will say I've heard some people changes are in the
works.  I promised not to go into details.  Let's see how much information
they publish on the rationale behind them.  Maybe the board has figured out
it is time for them to start doing their jobs, if they want to keep them?

FD

------=_Part_3908_25455085.1204179232389

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30553