X-Message-Number: 6982
From: Brian Wowk <>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 23:14:56 -0500
Subject: Reversible biostasis

Forward from sci.cryonics:

In <> Terry Lambert <> writes:

>What I question is whether, in the transition from hypothermic
>to cryogenic cooling, if a sucessfully reversible protocol will
>look like current trans hypothermic protocols, as they are
>practiced by any of the existing cryonics organizations.

(deleted)

>Are you claiming that you can recover people from cryogenic
>suspension, and that it would not require a CPA to cross the
>barrier line indicated by the arrow (above)?

 	Perhaps I misunderstood your original question.  I
thought you were suggesting that current hypothermic protocols
might have to be discarded on the way to full suspended
animation, which wouldn't make sense if the existing hypothermic
protocols (pre-CPA) are already reversible.  Perhaps you
could restate your point.


>] >Then why has research been primarily directed at preservation
>] >instead of reversible biostasis?
>] 
>]         It has not.

>I see.  So research has been directed primarily at incremental
>decreases in target temperature using minor variations in
>technique to empirically arrive a reversible biostasis?

	This assumes that the method above constitutes the sole
definition of "reversible biostasis research", which is precisely
the point at issue.  


>It's possible to partially recover from this by seperating
>the organs piecemeal to allow you to use different CPA's, but
>that is definite neglect of the larger goal.

	You can call it neglect, but in point of fact it's
highly likely that perfusing different tissue types with different
CPAs is the only way we'll see suspended animation in our
natural lifetime.  This is an EXTREMELY difficult problem
that may never be solvable with a single perfusate solution
(without nanotechnology).  


>And what you will end up with is, potentially, N protocols.

>   |         b      <- full reversible biostasis 
>   |        / 
>   |       /  
>   |      /   
>   |     /    
>   |    /      
>   |   /   x        <- "reversible" brain biostasis
>   |  /        
>   | /        
>   |/          
>   a----------      <- current technology


>What evidence you you have that the point x is on the shortest
>path route from point a to point b?

	The crucial observation is that x is so much closer to a than b
(10 to 100 times closer), that getting to x first will make a
negligible difference in the total distance we must travel to b.
Getting to x first will, however, make an enormous difference in
our personal life expectancy.  (And yes, that is a selfish 
argument.)

	And now, the non-selfish argument: By focussing on 
individual organs, each and every new organ that is successfully
cryopreserved will generate immediate medical benefits and revenues
that will continue propelling the total effort forward.  Struggling
for years, possibly decades, to break the high-sub-zero barrier
for whole organisms may not be commercially very rewarding, and you
have to be a starry-eyed optimist indeed to pour hundreds of millions
of dollars into somethimg with little payoff for decades.  In other
words, "reversible biostasis research" on the scale needed to solve
the problem will probably never get done unless it goes the individual
organ route.

***************************************************************************
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=6982