X-Message-Number: 6674 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 96 17:37:11 From: Brian Shock <> Subject: Prometheus Criticism One of my concerns regarding the "Prometheus Project" idea is that its proponents seem to ignore the difference between science and technology. The Project's ten-year deadline obviously derives from JFK's moonshot goal in the 1960's. As appealing as some might find this nostalgic slant, "reversible suspended animation of the brain" constitutes a problem far different from "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely." This difference involves the qualitative distinction between science and technology. As much as we may admire the moonshot program, it represented technology rather than science, engineering instead of research. Scientists had long since outlined the principles of spaceflight and demonstrated the feasibility of each basic step in the process. There was no serious doubt that rockets could propel an object to the moon or that humans could survive in space. Considering that President Kennedy had at his command the economic resources of the world's most powerful nation, the motivation of a popularly perceived "space race" with the Soviet Union, and a handful of dedicated German engineers, his goal of reaching the Moon by decade's end seems almost trivial in hindsight. The moonshot program required only money and dedication -- no major scientific breakthroughs. Can we say the same for Prometheus? Even if someone were to apply Dr. Fahy's promising vitrification work to the suspension of brains, could we honestly claim that perfecting this approach required nothing more than the furtherance of existing technology? As Mr. Ettinger pointed out some time back, where do we even find the technology to establish that an isolated brain had indeed survived the suspension process? Who in good conscience can step forward and assert that we now possess every scientific principle necessary to accomplish the Prometheus Project? If someone can show that Prometheus needs no scientific breakthroughs, all of us in the cryonics community would gratefully entertain his comments. However, if the success of Prometheus hinges on new scientific principles, its ten-year limit -- not to mention its budget -- seems almost farcical, more a slogan of emotional manipulation than an aspect of serious research. All cryonicists favor research toward reversible suspended animation. But before we blindly, desperately launch ourselves and our limited financial resources onto the first research bandwagon to pass our way, we must examine the approach this research will take. Valid scientific research is methodical, empirical, conservative, and demanding of unpredictable time and money. Has the Prometheus Proposal so far answered to this description? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6674