X-Message-Number: 6957
Date: 22 Sep 96 00:58:06 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Comparison: Prometheus & Alcor/CI/Visser
Message #6950, From: (TimeCat) is just the latest of several
posts from people who appear to see little difference between the Prometheus
Project and the Alcor/CI/Visser agreement and appeal for funding. Ever since
Bob Ettinger used the phrase "competing research projects", right after *he*
had made the announcement, and when *he* appeared to be acting as joint
spokesperson for a united Alcor/CI, many people have been *determined* to
continue to view these projects as *similar* and in competition. Even though
Alcor has several times officially denied that this is their view and have
agreed to include information about the Prometheus Project in their
publications, Bob Ettinger's continuing "competitive" posts have done little
to end this image.
Prometheus and Alcor/CI/Visser - Differences and similarities
Collection of money
Prometheus: Does not ask for trust, only an indication whether
detailed planning is worth pursuing. We plan first, you
pay later. No one pays a cent unless he or she approves
the final scientific and business plans and the necessary
amount of pledge dollars have done so.
Comment: The Prometheus Project plans will come from mainstream scientists
and experienced business managers who know how to make detailed,
meaningful plans. The Prometheus Project will make every effort to
solicit the support, advice and participation of top cryobiological
and neurobiological scientists. Since the Prometheus Project will
be conducted by a for-profit corporation, all plans and
expenditures will be available to the shareholders.
Alcor/CI/Visser: Trust us, we know what's best. Give us your money now,
later you may see some plans. No promise to give the
money back if not enough is received to do meaningful
work.
Comment: The Alcor/CI/Visser research is planned to be done by currently
employed scientists and lay volunteers. Alcor/CI appear to be
making no effort to assure that top scientists and facilities will
conduct the research. Even if plans are produced, they will be
unlikely to have the detail that scientists applying for grants
regularly provide, and which is needed to properly assess the
relevance and importance of the work proposed. Alcor/CI have given
no indication that they will provide a clear accounting either
before or after, of what the donations will be spent on.
Sharing of Research
Prometheus: All cryonics organizations are treated equally. All share
purchasers (regardless of organizational affiliation)
have the right to apply up to three times their share
payments for the purchase of Project technology at any
time in the future that they need it. All technology will
be distributed free to all cryonics organizations, under
a non-disclosure agreement, as soon as it is verified,
while the Project is in progress to conclusion.
Alcor/CI/Visser: Exclusive license implies attempt to extract payments for
technology from other cryonics orgs. No monetary benefit
to donors of money. No promise that they will get
reductions in the cost of their suspensions, even though
it is quite possible that the resulting technology (if
the Visser discovery has any value for cryonics - no
evidence as yet) would increase suspension cost.
Science Method
Prometheus: Open to use *any* science method that works, and will use
what the planners (ultimately the pledgers) believe is
the method which gives the best current chance of
success. Pledges are asked from cryonicists only for the
purpose of working on the brain which is the most
important organ of interest to the purpose of saving our
lives.
Comment: A very small part of mainstream cryobiology (itself a very small
and little-funded branch of biomedical science) has been working
for 25 years on finding a path to suspended animation (the rest of
the world essentially having given up after years of trying). Many
years ago after investigating many single and combinations of CPAs
(not thoroughly and exhaustively because there are just too many),
it was decided to go with the general method of vitrification.
Vitrification had the clear potential to solve the problem, whereas
it was not apparent that this was even possible without it. That
decision was the "right" one to make. Some people seem to think
that vitrification is a special purpose method. It is not. Because
of the vast number of CPA combinations which will vitrify
(including those containing Visser's agent, I would be certain),
vitrification cocktails are infinitely adjustable. They can be
perfused at different temperatures (even below 0 Celsius) and the
concentrations of the more toxic elements can be increased as the
temperature is lowered to ranges which slow down the toxic
reactions. In attempting to be honest and not give any false hope,
Prometheus Project supporters have said that whole-body suspended
animation may not be possible because is may turn out that there is
*no* common vitrification cocktail for all organs. However, the
variety and perfusion methods are so vast that it may also turn out
that there *is* a common method which will work for all organs.
Moreover, just as we will isolate (by clamping vasculature not by
cutting it) the brain from the body and perfuse and cool it
separately, so can we do the same with many separate organs. No
dissection of the body need ever be necessary to perfect suspended
animation.
Alcor/CI/Visser: Will use the Visser method only. Money is asked
immediately for work with hearts. Brains will be left
till later.
Comments: The Visser method appears to rely on a monoagent. Therefore, it is
inherently *less* flexible than the approach of using a mixture of
CPAs. There are a great variety of tissue types within the body.
The heart is made of particularly strong, long muscle fibers. They
can withstand a lot for separation by extra-cellular ice (if her
solution is not vitrifying, one of the many simple properties which
could have been, but has not been reported), and then close back
together and respond properly to the heart's electrical signals.
This is not the case for brain, kidney or liver tissue. I *have*
stressed that the Visser discovery may allow a shorter road to
whole-body suspended animation even if it is of no value for the
brain and other organ types. I certainly hope that this is the
case.
I desire a "breakthrough" as much as any other cryonicist. My only
problem with cryonicists being so attracted by the Visser discovery, is that
there is no evidence yet that it has any value for cryonics. I am concerned
that it will take resources and hope away from things for which there is more
evidence, and will eventually lead to the disappointment and disillusionment
of many cryonicists (something which has happened many times in the past, and
a criticism which has been repeatedly made of the Prometheus Project, which
applies even more to the Visser discovery at this early juncture). Bob
Ettinger says that his experience and intuition have made him sure that the
Visser method is the way to go. Maybe I am just lacking such vision, such
insight and such faith. What the Alcor leadership view is I don't really
know. Certainly, Hugh Hixon whose scientific judgement I respect, has
expressed none of the "certainty" which others do. Actually, Hugh is someone
I *would* be willing to give money for research to, if it would be used under
the terms of his exclusive judgement.
I very much hope that the Visser discovery does lead to earlier damage
free cryopreservation than otherwise might have occurred without her
dedicated and aggressive work. I am fully aware that reality does often
provide serendipitous occurrences (just as Murphy's law is so often valid),
and one should always be ready to appreciate and to grab them when they
occur. It is very frustrating to have to be one of those who must say, that
we lack "scientific" evidence of its applicability to cryonics, when it is
even possible that the evidence exists but is not being provided, and when I
am even eager that such evidence will soon surface. If the evidence is
forthcoming, I will enthusiastically support research on the Visser discovery
given that the research will be performed in a competent manner.
To specifically answer Ken:
>If I pledge to PP, and sign up with Alcor, will I benefit from the research?
>I don't have any guarantee that I will.
Yes, you do. You will receive a credit of up to three times your share
payments, which will be applicable to any technology which the Project
corporation owns.
>If I donate to Visser, and sign up with Cryocare, will I benefit from the
>research? Again, there are no guarantees.
No, there are not. Either CryoCare uses the technology free because "doing
cryonics is research", or they pay fees because Alcor/CI have an exclusive
license.
>So, in order for all orgs to obtain the greatest amount of pledge dollars
>possible, and also to prove that they are in fact, an organization based on
>a desire to provide the best possible service to their subscribers, I would
>like to suggest that Alcor and Cryocare both publish, and ammend their
>constitutions (or by-laws or whatever the heck they have), to indicate that
>they will freely distribute and make freely available and for public use
>without fees of any kind all information they may come into posession of
>regarding methods and research pertaining to cryonics.
I disagree that this is the way to proceed. It is the operating principle of
socialism, not the free market features of the Western World which have been
proven to be best at safeguarding individual rights and ownership, while also
providing wealth for all.
>Whoever does this proves that they have their subscribers best interests at
>heart, not their organization. Whoever doesn't, well, they prove the
>opposite.
This might be true of Alcor and CI which *are* membership organizations and,
at least, owe their members some return for their donations. It is not true
for Prometheus which will be conducted by a for-profit corporations having no
members and treating all buyers of its products (except for pledger/share
purchasers) equally.
>Even the simplest person (that's me) can see that there is little benefit
>in creating cryonic 'camps', given the limited amount of cryonic resources
>there are. I _do_ think that having multiple cyronics organizations is a
>good thing, but I think they should see themselves as members of a 'family',
>rather than seeing themselves as competitors.
I agree completely. Prometheus was exactly designed to avoid "camps" and to
finally get "cooperation" between the individual cryonicists from different
"camps".
>Cryonics is _not_ about getting someone to sign up with one organization, or
>another. It is about survival - the survival of the people at Alcor _and_
>the survival of the people at Cryocare.
And at CI and at ACS and at Trans Time! I wish all cryonics leaders
understood this as fully as you do.
>I've seen the start of co-operation in the postings here of late, but I'd
>like to see this go further, and cemented in writing. I don't want to see
>the good intentions fall apart when the dollars start rolling in, and then
>watch everyone go back to their camps and horde the cash.
Let us all fervently hope.
>Just do it!
Is this like "Make it so!" :)?
-- Paul --
!!!!! REVERSIBLE BRAIN CRYOPRESERVATION *CAN* BE ACHIEVED IN 10 YEARS !!!!!
Paul Wakfer email: Voice/Fax: Pager:
US: 1220 E Washington St #24, Colton, CA 92324 909-481-9620 800-805-2870
Canada: 238 Davenport Rd #240, Toronto, ON M5R 1J6 416-968-6291 416-446-9461
(Currently in California)
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6957