X-Message-Number: 6682
From: 
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 22:38:18 -0400
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS research perspective

In relation to the Prometheus project, I am not the "loyal opposition" (or
the disloyal opposition either), because I certainly don't oppose support for
Prometheus by those who think it holds sufficient promise. But Paul Wakfer's
desire to have Prometheus become a triumphal procession reminds us of what
the Romans did on such occasions. The general or emperor parading in triumph
had a little guy stationed next to him, on the rumble seat of his chariot,
whispering every few seconds: "Remember, you are mortal."

Bad choice of language; we hope not to be mortal. But perhaps Paul--and a few
others--need the occasional reminder of fallibility and imperfection. In any
case, let me try to put Prometheus in better perspective. Again, I apologize
in advance for the disjointed character of what follows; press of time does
not allow me to write a careful essay, and I just want to bring some relevant
thoughts to your attention.

Some of its promoters, and especially Paul, effectively try to portray
Prometheus as our last, best chance to save our lives--nothing else has
worked, nothing else is likely to work. Wrong on both counts.

Paul himself--and all the rest--joined the cryonics/immortalist movement in
the first place because the movement existed. It existed because of the
obvious truth (well, obvious to a few people, anyway) of a couple of simple
propositions:

a) A frozen patient at cryogenic temperatures--despite the addition of
freezing damage to the other deficits, usually including senescence--has a
better chance of eventual rescue than someone who is buried or cremated.

b) If some of us can get ourselves frozen and safely stored, we have a
chance, whether or not cryonics ever becomes popular. The advances in
technology, necessary to revive and rejuvenate the patients, will come (if
civilization endures)  with or without cryonics.

As an extremely tiny movement, with no big-rich members, cryonics could not
make significant financial contirbutions to research. But as we advance from
extremely tiny to merely very tiny, this begins to change, as it has done.
Several of our patients, for example, have made 6-figure or more bequests to
their organizations--and that out of a total present patient population of
only about 70. The organizations also now include a few VERY wealthy
individuals, and it is probably only a matter of  time before one or more
loosens up the purse strings to improve his chances.  

Thirty years ago I was able to get several prominent cryobiologists to join
the Scientific Advisory Council of the Cryonics Societies of America. The
main enticement was the notion that growth of cryonics would bring money for
their research (and it is still true that ONLY cryonics is likely to produce
large-scale funding for cryobiological research). But we were much, much,
much, much slower out of the blocks than I expected, and when the money
didn't materialize the cryobiologists turned tail. They will come back when
they again smell money, and they will smell the money when either (a) we fund
research in a significant way, or (b) the organizations make obvious gains in
size and influence, as they have barely begun to do.

Paul and others are trying to sell the idea that only through important new
research advances can cryonics give us a decent chance--and only we are able
and willing to fund that research; and further, that only through that
successful research can cryonics grow significantly. Let's look at that last
for a moment.

Has cryonics so far been an organizational  failure, as Paul says? Yes, given
original expectations as high as mine were, and relative to the size of the
population. Yet we have persisted, and have not been lynched, while
advocating the most radical revolution in human history (and prehistory),
threatening the foundations of enormous establishments and demanding
agonizing reappraisal of personal philosophies. 

We have grown, very slowly for a long time and a little faster in recent
years. Continued and accelerated growth is nearly certain, because the tide
of history is on our side. Every year--almost every day--new discoveries in
science and medicine make our thesis more credible. THIS is the basic reason
for our improved public image and more rapid growth, along with the
foundation of awareness that we have painfully built over the years, even
while seeming to have largely failed. 

Five years ago the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine did not exist, and
VERY few physicians and researchers were willing to admit radical life
extension as a proper subject for research or even as a proper aspiration.
Last year, at its fourth annual conference (if I remember correctly) twelve
hundred attended, most of them openly advocating radical life extension as a
goal and as a research effort. The popular press is full of anti-aging news
and advertisements and discussion. 

Some time fairly soon it will dawn on John Q. that his grandchildren or
great-grandchildren will probably never die a natural death, because the
anti-aging break-throughs will probably come in less than 75 years; and then
John himself will be forced to re-think his traditional idea that the
succession of generations is the right and natural order. Who wants to be the
last dinosaur? Point me toward the freezer!

In other words, once more, the cryonics movement does NOT necessarily depend
for its growth on our own funding for early success in suspended animation. 

There are also some negative features to the promotion of Prometheus. Paul
and Brian Wowk and a few others sometimes tend to give the impression that,
without much improved methods, patients have little chance. I don't believe
that is true. At most, it is arguable; but what is not arguable is that, if
we go out of our way to disparage the chances of present patients, we will
tend to get fewer of them. That is bad, both for cryonics in general and for
the prospective patients, who may lose their only chance.

Brian has actually said on Cryonet, as I recall, that CryoCare is not much
interested in increasing its patient population now, but in recruiting young
and healthy members who will pay dues for many years and help fund research
for eventual fully perfected methods. If that is really CryoCare's position,
then there is a degree of divergence of interest between CryoCare and people
with short life expectancies. Of course, Brian will respond that CryoCare
also tries to give the best possible service to those members who do die in
the near future; nevertheless, the perspective is different.

Again: In my opinion it is a bad idea--as well as an erroneous one--to say or
suggest that, without fully perfected suspended animation, cryonics patients
have little chance. This is NOT to say we should be complacent, and Cryonics
Institute for one is constantly probing and pushing for improvement in all
aspects of operation; but a balance must be struck, and I think the
Prometheus promoters are far from balance.

Some of the alternative ways to spend $10 million:

1. Give a half million each to 20 cryobiologists, instead of $10 million to
one principal investigator. Their official attitude is likely to change
rather quickly, and that alone could hasten the positive change in public
attitude. 

2. Give the $10 million to a hundred East European cryobiologists, or a
million each to 10 east European universities. We might then get many times
the person-hours of research, and many times as much thought devoted to a
wide range of new ideas, in ADDITION to pursuit of the vitrification angle. 

3. Instead of spending the money on research  directly, spend it on cryonics
public relations and recruitment. No organization has ever had that kind of
money for that purpose, and in my opinion it is NEARLY CERTAIN that our
membership, and our patient population, would grow much more rapidly. This in
turn would create potential research funding at a higher level, and might
also, at some point, raise our political clout to the point of getting some
government funding. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE
that this allocation of funds would hold more promise than Paul's.

Finally, is it really true that vitrification is clearly the most promising
route? Rabbit kidney slices (not yet whole kidneys) have recovered function
after vitrification at cryogenic temperatures, by various anatomical and
physiological observations. On the other hand, Pichugin's rabbit brain
pieces, rewarmed from liquid nitrogen (not vitrified) showed spontaneous and
evoked organized bioelectric activity in networks of neurons. (There is also
an old report--by Halacz, as I recall--not repeated, of complete success with
dog kidneys recovered from liquid nitrogen, not vitrified.) 

Finally--and perhaps most important--there is the work of Michelle Olga
Visser in South Africa. As Paul and Brian and others are well aware, she has
reported fully beating rat hearts, with normal ECGs, recovered from liquid
nitrogen--a feat attempted unsuccessfully by other cryobiologists for over 30
years. This is the greatest break-through claimed to date. As we all know, it
has been verified on Cryonet by Prof. Dirk du Plessis, a department head at
Mrs. Visser's hospital. Brian has belittled it on the basis of reported
difficulties in arranging publication, but I know of no objective reason to
disbelieve it. 

Whether this success will extend to human organs, and especially the brain,
remains to be seen; but unless Mrs. Visser AND several highly placed
associates, who say they saw it with their own eyes, are simply making all
this up, then HER technology, and not vitrification, takes first place. 

Confusing? Nobody said becoming immortal would be easy. But I think it is
clear enough that Wakfer's project is being promoted in an unbalanced and
sometimes misleading way.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6682