X-Message-Number: 6500
Date: 12 Jul 96 02:11:29 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Prometheus - Reply to Bob Ettinger

In Cryonet #6464 Bob Ettinger wrote:
> Whether all cryonics organizations should support
>Prometheus--or to what degree they should support it--is unfortunately not
>so clear, as usual in the real world as opposed to the world of rhetoric. 

As I have stated in my Prometheus writings, I am *not* looking for a joint
effort by the cryonics organizations here. What the Cryonics Institute or the
Immortalist Society contributes will depend on how much they can afford, and
to what extent their leadership accepts the validity and strength of the
arguments which I am making and therefore, what they really think of the
potential of the Prometheus Project, if funded, for greatly improving their
chance of extended life. To this extent I am treating cryonics organizations
no differently than individual cryonicists. What I do need is for the
Immortalist Society, which I understand is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization
and can issue tax deductible receipts for donations given for scientific
research, to agree to accept pledges for future directed donations to the
Prometheus Project and to pledge to purchase shares in the resulting company
with the money which is later donated by those pledgers.

>First let me say that the Cryonics Institute and the Immortalist Society
>will not be able to form a policy on Prometheus before their annual
>meetings in September.

Are you saying that if before September, someone should offer to pledge $10K
per year to the Immortalist Society to be a directed donation to the
Prometheus Project when it begins, you would refuse to accept this?

>As to technical likelihood of success in the Prometheus approach,  Paul is
>relying, as far as I know, primarily on Greg Fahy's judgment. Greg is well
>qualified to form such a judgment--but on the other hand I believe the sober
>fact is that he has been over-optimistic in the past. (Who among us hasn't?)
>In 1962 there were "experts" predicting suspended animation within ten
>years, given "sufficient" funding.

Greg is much older than he used to be (aren't we all), and I believe that he
is also wise enough now not to make that mistake, certainly not to over-
estimate as much. Actually, the ballpark estimates that I had being hearing
from other knowledgeable people in addition to Greg were $1M per year for *5*
years. It was I who, having had experience with estimates before by those who
would actually be doing the work, decided to double the length of time that
the Project would realistically take. And in 1962, we didn't have almost
perfected vitrification of a sizable whole mammalian organ.

>2. Who is going to select the research approach(es) and allocate the funds?
>Again, in light of the repeated references to vitrification, it seems
>obvious that Greg or/and people close to him, or of like mind, will be asked
>to lead the way. That might be fine. On the other hand, alternative
>approaches might be neglected, and one or more of those might turn out to be
>better or/and cheaper. This suggests we need to keep some diversity and some
>independent research projects.

As I have explained in the Prometheus description, rather than spend several
man-years of planning only to find it was a waste of time because it is
impossible to get the funding (something which has occurred many times before
in cryonics), I am saying to everyone, "Just suppose we were able to put
together a company with administrators, scientists, a scientific plan, and a
business which you approved of and thought would work to accomplish
convincingly demonstrated, scientifically proven and published, fully
reversible brain cryopreservation within 10 years, honestly, how much would
you be willing to contribute?" As soon as it looks like the funding will be
possible, we will get the scientific team which we are approaching even now
to start working on the scientific plan. The pledgers will be on a special
"insiders" mail and email list. They will be continually updated and allowed
to comment on both the scientific and business planning, since they will have
to approve both *before* they start making pledge payments. Based on current
research results, I believe that vitrification has an excellent chance of
producing the scientific goal of the project. Yes, alternative approaches
should be continued with if at all possible. Other approaches may well be
capable of reaching the "no-damage" goal.

>3. Will plans and results be shared on a timely basis? With whom?
>Since there has been talk of "shares," presumably there is a potential
>profit motive tied in, suggesting an incentive to keeping proprietary
>information confidential at least until patents are obtained. This in turn
>suggests that there could be potentially life-saving information withheld
>from the public for protracted periods. 

All plans must be approved by all pledgers and once the project is begun will
be communicated to shareholders in the company which is executing the
project. Results will be available immediately they are found and verified,
free to all cryonics organizations who are buying more than a certain number
shares per year (I am open to suggestions on what that number should be) and
by payment of fees to anyone who has not. The purpose of the for-profit form
of the company executing the project is to attract pledgers who wish to be
investors. If the company is out to make money it *will* make all technology
available as soon as possible in order to be able to get income for it from
those who are not purchasing sufficient shares.

>4. Continuing this thread, Brian Wowk is President of CryoCare, and CryoCare
>is a leading element in Prometheus.

CryoCare as such will have *no say whatever* in the Prometheus Project beyond
what its share purchase will get them. If Cryonics Institute purchases the
same number of shares, then they will have the same say. The way to have a
say and not let the project be controlled by others is simply to pledge to by
share yourself, Bob. 

> Brian has expressed himself in favor of
>deferring any claims about crypreservation techniques until publication in a
>peer-reviewed journal. The merits of this position are obvious, but (as
>usual) there is a flip side. 
>
>One contrary aspect is the obvious one of delay possibly costing lives.

Deferring claims until publication is good science, but it does not imply
that the technology used to obtain the results being published cannot already
be used for cryonics purposes long before publication especially by those
organizations who have heavily invested in the company.

>Another is the more general conceptual question of decisions controlled by
>free markets vs. those controlled by guilds. The guild system may have its
>merits, but so does the free market system. Publish when and as you please,
>offer for sale when and as you please; the customers will make the final
>judgments, and will continuously modify them in light of experience. No
>"blue ribbon" committee is likely to do better, and would almost certainly
>be slower. 

Bob, I really don't understand what you are trying to say here so I cannot
comment.

>but reality is a tough environment, and we need to see it clearly.

I couldn't agree more and I welcome more comments, questions and attempted
refutation of my arguments. There haven't been enough.

>By the way, I don't think Paul mentioned the original Prometheus Project,
>Gary Feinberg's proposal and book of that name (Doubleday, 1969). But
>probably Gary won't object, since he's dead.

Someone told me about this book. Its existence and the other "Prometheus"
listings on the Net were part of the reason why, in my initial description of
the project, I stated that even the name was still open. However, no one so
far has objected and the name so strongly fits the goal, that I believe that
it is now firmly established. 


-- Paul --

!!!!! REVERSIBLE BRAIN CRYOPRESERVATION *CAN* BE ACHIEVED IN 10 YEARS !!!!!

Paul Wakfer  email:        Voice/Fax:     Pager:
US:     1220 E Washington St #24, Colton, CA 92324 909-481-4433 800-805-2870
Canada: 238 Davenport Rd #240, Toronto, ON M5R 1J6 416-968-6291 416-446-9461
(currently in Canada)


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6500