X-Message-Number: 4531
From:  (Brian Wowk)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Recent research in Cryonics?
Date: 20 Jun 1995 04:21:19 GMT
Message-ID: <3s5ibv$>
References: <>

In <>  (John 
M. Bozeman) writes:

>I am working on a paper that deals with the subject of cryonics.
>After looking through some of the literature, I have become
>curious about the question of research... while I know that
>some advances in freezing technology have been made that
>allow more uniform cooling rates to be used, it also appears
>that there is some gap between cryonicists and cryonbiologists.
>If this is true, has there been much in the way of further
>research being done on the subject of cryonics in particular?
>Or are people still being frozen in much the same way that
>was begin about 20 years ago?

	There have been enormous advances in the past 20 years.
Chief among these has been the application of sophisticated
drugs, medical devices, and medical procedures to minimize
ischemic injury following cardiac arrest and more closely
control cryoprotective perfusion.  As a result of these advances,
most of the vital organs of cryonics patients (including, we
believe, the brain) remain viable by *present criteria* as
far as 36 hours into the procedure, prior to deep cooling. 
This new technology level is a prerequisite to the greater
advances which are still to come.

	At present there is still no way to cool large organs to
deep sub-zero temperatures without producing damage that is
irreversible by current technology.  (A possible exception may
be the kidney, for which a solution appears extremely close.)
The most urgent research goal of cryonicists over the next
decade is to adapt those technologies now being brought to
bear on preservation of transplantable organs like the
kidney to achieve a goal that we believe to be infintely 
more important: Reversible cryopreservation of the human brain.

	Until this goal is achieved, we console ourselves in
the knowledge that even present techniques produce a quality
of preservation that is almost indistinguishable from control
tissue (as revealed by light and electron microscopy, and 
functional recovery of individual cells).

	Cryobiologists (note the spelling) disagree with
cryonicists over one very basic issue: Future repair.  Most
cryobiologists steadfastly refuse to consider any effect
that future medical advances might have on the prognosis
of cryonics patients, even when those advances are clearly
foreseeable.  Frankly their incessant mantra of "it doesn't
work, it doesn't work, it doesn't work...." is wearing
thin with age.  Even the often anti-technological environmental 
movement is starting to recognize the value of cryopreserving
specimens of endangered species with the goal of restoring
them with future technology.  Pity the Society for Cryobiology
does not extend the same philosophical courtesy to endangered
human life.

Brian Wowk
CryoCare Foundation

P.S. For further information, see the Web pages at
and particularly the CryoNet Reference Files within the CryoNet Archives.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4531