X-Message-Number: 3087
Date: 09 Sep 94 00:29:23 EDT
From: "Steven B. Harris" <>
Subject: CRYONICS Research Directions

Dear Cryonet:

    I thank Robert Ettinger for his comments, but must again
emphasize that we do not live in a locally deterministic 
universe.   This is an experimental fact, not just a prediction
of quantum mechanical theory (although it is this, also).  If
things happen for a reason, the "reason" must have to do with the
state of the universe outside the light cone of the event, and
thus, if the universe "knows what it is doing" as Dr. Ettinger
has faith that it does, then is the ENTIRE universe that knows,
and it would take understanding of the state of the ENTIRE
universe to make predictions or retrodictions for any part of it,
in some microscopic processes.  I'm not afraid of large numbers,
but it seems to me that the numbers here would have to be
generated by a computer of at least the complexity of the
universe, and I don't think it is pessimistic to predict that IBM
is never going to offer such a thing.  Or nanotechnology either. 

    Contrary to a number of statements, we really do not know
when (before or after solidification) that the most critical
damage to a suspended brain takes place, and there are arguments
to be made on both sides.  Yes, it is surely true that far more
of the kind of damage that shows up in electron micrographs is
done during freezing, and when I see these photos I'm bothered as
much as the next person (and perhaps, if this discussion is any
indication, more).  On the other hand, damage gross enough to see
on electron microscopy is often the kind of damage which we
expect can be repaired, at least in theory (those are very large
collections of atoms, after all).  The scary part here is that
perhaps such damage is also a marker for other damage on smaller
scales which we can infer but cannot see directly.  This damage
would be best characterized as chemical rather than mechanical
damage, and it is the major kind of damage which occurs while the
brain is still in the liquid state, at least in the short term. 
It is chemical damage which for theoretical reasons (which I
discussed in my last post) may forever remain unfixable, since
the information, at least in a non-deterministic universe, is
lost (and even in a non-locally deterministic universe, the best
we can hope for, is lost unless you can compute the wavefunction
of the entire universe, as noted).

    In which period of ischemia (before or after freezing) is it
most important to do research, then?   I don't know, which is why
we are doing both kinds of research at Biopreservation.  My own
bias, as I admit, is toward doing research in the liquid period,
for several reasons.  One is that this period encompasses 
commercially medically useful research, so funding is easier to
find.  A second is that results of decreasing chemical damage
during the liquid phase are easier to objectively gauge, since
successful prevention of chemical damage in the liquid state
results in live, functional animals, whereas prevention of
mechanical damage from freezing may still not result in live
animals (due to concomitant chemical damage during that phase). 
Thus, liquid phase research has better feedback.  A third reason
is that damage during transition to the solid phase is not
independent damage but is in itself partly dependent on damage
done in the liquid phase, both because of perfusion 
considerations and also other more complicated mechanisms.  Thus,
in a sense, liquid phase research carries double-payoffs.

    All this is not to say that I do not believe that solid phase
research is not important, and I don't know why anyone got the
impression that I was trying to detract from the importance of
Dr. Ettinger's research here.  As Mike pointed out, but which did
not perhaps sink in, we also are doing research into damage
during freezing of the kind Dr. Ettinger is, and in fact we now
possess the *only* electron micrographic studies yet done of
animal brains subjected to the full ViaSpan/ high concentration
glycerol cryonic suspension protocols of the type now employed at
both Alcor and BioPreservation (and considering that it cost
$1200 just in microscopy fees to get them, I was quite amused at
the suggestion that we spend research $ only on washouts here). 
We plan much more extensive studies into freezing damage in the
future, including some most interesting MRI protocols designed by
physicist Brian Wowk, who does MRI research for a living.  I
agree that (sadly) we presently lack proof that even the most
careful and quick cryonics protocols result in less damage than
many varieties of cheaper ones.  This idea is an inference from
much previous indirect evidence, but one that should have more
direct supporting evidence very shortly.  Stay tuned.

    I am not happy about the 2% per year risk of a major Earth
quake which we presently face where we are in California, and if
I'd had my way I would have arranged to be perfused here in
California at Biopreservation, and be stored in Arizona at Alcor. 
Unfortunately, since decisions by Dave Pizer and a few others
deprived me (and everyone else) of this option, I have been
forced to make decisions involving tradeoffs.  Since I am
presently signed up as a "neuro-suspension" with CryoCare, and
since CryoPreservation in California will shortly be going to a
concrete vault-hardened system for neuros sufficient to withstand
any earthquake, I feel at present that storage risks in 
California for me are more than made up for, in other ways.  For
those who insist on whole-body storage (we have no whole bodies
at present), the trade-offs may differ (we do offer full 
disclosure, and do inform those who sign up "whole body" of the
temporary greater storage risk in California than Arizona). 
These risks will change yet again when we complete our planned
large underground vault system, so again, stay tuned.  

    Finally, I was a bit surprised by the general venom of Dave
Pizer's letter:  "Dr. Harris is a lot better at building straw
men than good relationships in the cryonics community."  
Actually, my "relationships with the cryonics community"
and indeed with people in general, are fine, thanks.  It's only
my relationship with the people who recently decided they had to
gain total control of The Alcor Life Extension Foundation which
have soured.  [I have a revelation for you, Dave: this relatively
small group of persons are not the "cryonics community"; they are
only your cronies down there at Alcor.]  

    My comment about Ettinger being scheduled for "man~ana-style"
cryonics in Arizona was not meant to insult or take a "cheap
shot" at Alcor, since I had no idea that Ettinger was planning to
be perfused by Alcor!  I put in the word "Arizona" only because I
knew Arizona was where Dr. Ettinger was planning to retire, and I
used the word "man~ana"* to describe not Alcor, but rather the
kind of cryonics practiced by morticians and by organizations,
like CI and Trans-Time, who often wait until patients are
delivered to their doorstep before they will go to work on them
(that's what I mean by "convenience" of the organization).  

    Now, if Dr. Ettinger HAS indeed made arrangements to be
perfused by Alcor rather than a local mortician if he dies in
Arizona, this would speak of Ettinger's wisdom.  But not, of
course, of Dave Pizer's, who would (if Ettinger's arrangements
here are not public knowledge) perhaps profit by learning not to
take umbrage in ways which will inevitably suggest the nature of
confidential arrangements which particular clients have made with
Alcor.

    On the other hand, of course, if Ettinger has NOT made such
arrangements with Alcor, then my original comments still stand. 
Given his plans to retire in Arizona, I would certainly urge him
to do so.


                              Cordially,

                              Steve Harris



* Have to use a separate tilde since there is no ASCII code for
the 17th letter of the Spanish alphabet.  

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3087