X-Message-Number: 6521
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Prometheus as an investment
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:28:06 +1000 (EST)

Steve Bridge proposes some reasons why cryonics organisations may decide not
to invest in Prometheus.

>[...] it is possible that the Prometheus managers will chose a 
>dead-end research path with a giant money sink-hole by its side.  All 
>research is risky.  How do we know THIS one will work?

We don't - investing in anything carries a measure of risk. What we do
know is that, presuming Prometheus goes ahead, it will be the best
funded project of its kind in the world. There's certainly a (very
small?) chance that one or another cryobiologist funded by someone or
other else will develop reversible brain vitrification first, or that
there are simply more technical obstacles to surmount than the $10
million will cover. Prometheus certainly might not work.

However, presuming that matters of politics, technical direction and
personnel are agreeable, sitting on your funds while such a possibility
goes unfunded seems to me to be, itself, a risk - for the reasons I 
described in my earlier posting.

>2.  Anyone who invests in any cryonics-oriented research in the 
>anticipation of "a tremendous future source of funds" is a fool of the 
>worst kind.  Even solving the question of suspended animation does not 
>assure profits.  There are many risks in patents and product development 
>which could stifle actual profits.  There is still the risk that we will 
>have the answer and NO ONE IN SOCIETY WILL CARE BESIDES US.

Once Prometheus works (well, once we can scale it up to reversibly
suspend a *human* brain ...) then we will no longer be dealing in
speculative technology - we will have demonstrated a medical technique
with a vast range of application. The profits would certainly not appear
immediately, but it seems, to this fool at least, that there will be
zero risk that NO ONE will be interested.

>     Anyone who invests in the Prometheus Project had better be sure they 
>understand they are "investing" in their own survival and in the hope of a 
>practical scientific breakthrough.  If they someday get profits, that is 
>great; but as a profit-making investment, any company like this is HIGH 
>RISK.  This may turn out to be the right direction; but invest for the 
>right reasons, not because you have dollar signs in your eyes.

I should hope that Prometheus will pitch for funds by describing the
potential profit too - potential profit, even with high risk, has proven
a successful motivation for investors in many technical startups - I
can't think why Prometheus should be an exception. Certainly the benefit
of personal survival would be the greatest profit you could enjoy, but
venture capitalists are not used to thinking in those terms ...

>4.  Some cryonics organizations could decide that they have better (or at 
>least equally possible) alternate directions for research that they wish 
>to support.  This does NOT mean "they had no real interest in doing their 
>best to make cryonics actually succeed."  It would just mean that they 
>chose not to put all of their eggs in this particular basket.

All the eggs? I agree that other directions for research may be seen by
various orgs as being of *much* greater interest - but I'd hope that the
orgs would still kick in something, if only to demonstrate that they
were not putting all their eggs in one basket.

Peter Merel.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6521