X-Message-Number: 6921
From: Brian Wowk <>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:32:54 -0500
Subject: A Suggestion

	Dave Pizer writes that Alcor needs $100,000 for Visser
pilot studies because staff must be hired and they "haven't done
research in a while".

	Bob Ettinger proposes to study sheep hearts at CI with
with lay volunteers.

	There is another route to consider.  Why not approach
Dr. Greg Fahy and his team at the U.S. Naval Medical Research
Institute?  They are fully equipped to do cryopreservation studies
on animal organs RIGHT NOW.  Along with David Pegg's lab in
England, Fahy's lab is one of the few places in the world that
specializes in organ cryopreservation (with a published track
record in this field).  They have staff, animals, equipment,
expertise (including a transplant surgeon)-- everything needed
for pilot studies. 

	Why do this?

*	Because the people and equipment are already in place,
	the cost would be extremely low (and covered almost
	instantly by donations given Fahy's reputation). 

*	Answers (good or bad) would come very quickly.  	

*	The work would be immediately publishable (after Visser's
	paper, of course).

*	Fahy also has the years of experience and specialized 
	technology (computer-controlled perfusion, rf heating,
	supplementary cryoprotectants) that will almost certainly
	be necessary to later optimize the Visser method for
	various organs.   

*	Positive results from Fahy's lab (especially at slow cooling
	rates) would bring much more rapid acceptance by 

		-cryonicists (with accolades to CI/Alcor)

		-cryobiologists

		-the public at large (including new investors)

	The level of research activity by everyone would rise much
	higher and much faster than it would otherwise (especially
	if our bickering continues).

	In short, I suggest Dr. Fahy as an emminently qualified arbiter
of this dispute among us "armchair cryobiologists"; a scientist who Mrs.
Visser herself told me she considers "above reproach."   

	I have not discussed this proposal with Dr. Fahy,
and it is not certain he would agree to it given the politics involved.
However I think there are good reasons to believe he would be willing
to do Visser pilot studies.  The biggest reason is that Fahy no doubt 
realizes that if the Visser method really does surpass his own work,
then the only way his lab will survive is by developing value-added
adaptations of the technology.  (An observation that applies equally well 
to cryonics organizations.)  This is also the best reason to trust Fahy.
Reporting a false negative result would plant the seeds of his own
scientific and commercial destruction.  So Fahy has every incentive
to learn and disclose the truth in this matter.  

	If there is a breakthrough here, then I think it
behooves the cryonics community to give Greg Fahy (as one of the
few cryobioligists over the years who has treated cryonicists
with courtesy) an opportunity to examine it.

***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   
   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6921