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