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